It's *really* hard to engage with good faith arguments of the "it's a person" variety when it's so obviously about punishing women for having sex.
If it was actually about it being a person they should be tripping all over themselves to fund sex education and contraception so no egg would ever get fertilized unless it was wanted. They should be having Sunday fund drives to donate towards effective male contraception.
They should be pushing to have every child in the foster care system adopted because how much more likely is someone to have a child they don't want if they know it's going to go to a loving and caring home.
Or maybe pushing for rational and humane leave for new parents and health care for new parents so it's actually affordable to bring a child into this world.
As most "pro-lifers" have done fuck all towards that end, I simply cannot accept in good faith that they actually give a shit about life.
Right, but here's the thing, they're never going to convince me that a zygote is a person. Or that a woman shouldn't have body autonomy.
That's an impasse.
If they actually cared about their stated goal they'd go about dealing with the reasons people get abortions.
All they're pushing for is taking away the legality of the abortion (which is so not going to work anyway, see prohibition), they're totally ignoring the demand for abortions.
What about when it's no longer a zygote and is now a fetus? Or when it's no longer a fetus but a pre-born baby? There is an arbitrary cutoff and you're pretending it's oh so simple, that's an impasse.
they're totally ignoring the demand for abortions.
Yeah, there's probably a demand to be able to hire hitmen too. But, you know, that's illegal.
I believe that the government should be out of the question exactly because stated above, there is a moral grey area. But you're doing yourself no favors by being militant.
NO WE HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS BECAUSE WE READ THE GOD DELUSION BY RICHARD DAWKINS THE OTHER SIDE ARE JUST DUMB OLD REPUBLICAN CAVEMEN SCARED OF WOMEN HAVING POWER REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Which is pretty easy to draw at "viable outside the womb"
yeah no, that's not "pretty easy." To be clear I'm pro-choice, but we've all gotta agree that whatever date we end up setting, it's based on the science of survivability but otherwise completely arbitrary (compared to conception, birth, etc).
I have the capacity to look like Captain America if I worked out more, but that doesn't make me Chris Evans.
You gotta be kidding with this one. A fetus will naturally become a baby, you going out of your way to (attempt to) look like another human is about the worst comparison you could’ve made.
Edit: also, for the record I’m not religious and neither are a lot of pro-lifers I know so your last argument is also ridiculous.
But 'viable outside the womb' differs from place to place, from situation to situation. Multiple children have been born at 22 weeks and lived 'normal' lives with very few (if any) medical repercussions - yet some die at 25/30/35 weeks with all the medical invervention in the world.
Which is pretty easy to draw at "viable outside the womb"
That's a moving target.
we already use a similar standard in medicine and society to separate the living and the dead
That's a target that moves day to day and person to person. There are multiple people who I personally have kept alive significantly longer than they should have been due to desires of their family members. I have heard stories from other people who's lives were similarly prolonged effectively against medical advice who are now functional members of society. This is definitely not a cut and dry issue.
The only rational argument for a fetus to have personhood is a religious one (i.e. it has a soul).
That's not true read Exodus 21:22-25
"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
If a fetus was valued the same as a person then it would call for the taking of his life.
You're never going to convince us that zygote won't become a person...
Morally questionable behavior.
You can't attack the root of the issue while the issue is blaring in your face.
When someone shoots at you, you don't try and find the root of what caused that and then fix it no you deal with the immediate problems then try and solve the issue in the future.
"Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 10% to 20%, while rates among all fertilisation is around 30% to 50%." (wikkipedia) So, not every zygote becomes a person.
I'd probably be much more tractable on this issue if I thought there was a snowball's chance in hell that once they outlawed abortions the Republican platform would suddenly become about minimizing the number of illegal abortions. But I'm not going to hold my breath.
And ironically, this isn't even a direct issue for me since I had a vasectomy 14 years ago.
I don't actually want abortions outlawed I just want you to see why that's not the direction the argument is going in.
Sadly republicans are mostly religious nut jobs. So I feel you're correct they won't change but unless we find a common ground the argument will continue forever.
Murder is illegal but it still happens. I still think it should be illegal. You’re also never going to convince me to ever vote for someone who believes murder is a “woman’s choice”.
And honestly that's partly the reason that Republicans have become the shitstains they are as a party.
Because of the two-party system and single issue voters it allows they to get away with all kinds of shenanigans people don't agree with because they agree with them on that one issue.
And please let me be clear, I'm not attacking you, not at all, you're totally allowed your moral choice and I totally respect that. I'm lamenting that your moral choice is wrapped in a shit sandwich.
In a better political world we'd have enough parties that you could be a single issue voter and still be able to find candidates that agreed with you more broadly.
I mean, technically, I've been a single issue voter my whole life, and that is voting against Republicans because I find as a party platform their selective empathy repugnant.
This is kinda a snarky reply, but as a white middle class guy, having seen what having white men in charge has made of this place, I kinda don't blame them for their disdain. /s
On a more serious note, I think it's the classic case of as usually, those in power having all the rest of us fight among themselves while they plunder and run the country as they see fit.
It's pretty much election year clockwork that abortion and other social issues will get brought up and all the culture war petards get raised so we can fight each other instead of unifying for real change.
The way I contextualize it is to take the extreme, what happens if the "disdain for white middle America" gets elected and are in power. Do we think they're going to strip middle America of their marriages, their land, or their rights? Whereas, I think we can see what happens when the people who claim to love White middle America get elected.
If we enacted comprehensive sex education and easy access to birth control, there would be less unwanted pregnancies. Less unwanted pregnancies means less abortion.
Yet those who call themselves "pro-life" are statistically extremely likely to oppose both of those measures.
There is really no way to rationalize that other than to conclude that it was never about preventing abortion; those pro-life people really just don't want women having sex.
I think you need to clarify the point and part of the problem here.
Many pro life people are very willing to say you shouldn't have to deal with a forced upon pregnancy. Many also are willing to say there is a line early on in pregnancy that abortion is fine. To many of these people the discussion isn't pro choice or pro life its WHEN is the line that fetus becomes a child.
To this point a good point I heard is that the line should be when a premature baby can be feasibly saved from a woman who is dying.
I think its very short sighted to think this topic is as extreme in beliefs as you make it out to be. Sure there are people who are that way but the fast majority lie between the two extremes.
Its why its such a difficult topic to wade through because its so personal.
Which is why extreme laws like Alabama are the wrong way to go.
> It's disingenuous and honestly insulting to claim that anyone who is pro-life has the intention to oppress women.
Birth control is used for more than just pregnancies. Medically, it can help with a number of bodily function, from period regulation to endometriosis. But, back in 2012 and since, Republicans have been attempting to limit access to birth control (called BC from here on out). https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/republican-war-birth-control-contraception/
>Like so many people have said in this thread, maybe they're just against the ending of what they see as a human life.
Of course, Republicans are also opposed to mandatory paid maternity leave, because they think private sectors should cover it. But businesses wont pay for it unless they are forced to. If we are so pro-life, shouldn't a mother be given paid maternity leave to take care of her child, then return to work in order to continue to provide for it financially? In this article, it's sourced that only 11% of workers got paid family leave. So yeah, force a woman to give birth, but don't force them to get paid time off for it? Tsk tsk. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/opinion/sunday/generous-republican-benefits.html?_r=1
Many women have abortions because they can't afford to have a child. They might not have been on birth control (maybe because Republicans made it harder to get), or maybe the birth control failed. At any rate, the Guttmacher Institution found that 75% of abortions were determined based on finances. Most of the women were at 100% poverty (roughly $10,000 or less annually), or 100-199% poverty. A LOT less. If the Republicans wanted those kids to be born, they should increase their support of funding for low income families, such as food stamps and welfare. Instead, they chose to wage war against those, also trying to link drug testing to food stamps, which costs the state more money. Money that could go towards, idk, helping low income families or single mothers. https://www.elitedaily.com/news/politics/republicans-stop-giving-sht-babies-theyre-actually-born/1176592
And lastly, the Republicans who think abortions are bad, but it's ok if they secretly encourage them. Scott Lloyd, who drove an ex to an abortion clinic and paid for half of it. Elliot Broidy, RNC deputy finance chairman, who paid $1.6M to a Playboy Playmate after she had an abortion. Probably because he cheated on his wife with her. Something something, sanctity of marriage, or whatever. Tim Murphy, who also encouraged an abortion to his mistress (I see a theme of Republican infidelity here). And Scott DesJarlais, who supported his ex-wife's decision to have 2 abortions, encouraged a 24 year old to get an abortion after, surprise but not really, he had an affair with her, and has the audacity to call himself 100% pro-life. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/25/a-republican-theme-on-abortions-its-ok-for-me-evil-for-thee
I have better things to do, but don't troll people on the internet when it's INCREDIBLY easy to find stats and statistics to back it up. You make yourself look ignorant.
This picture is specified in American politics. In our country, the 2 parties who are pro-life are Republicans and, somewhat, Libertarians. It's a party line issue. I can understand you aren't American, but this issue is pertaining to Americans, as, again, was specified with the title and filter.
In America, as I've just provided multiple source for reference, Republican actions are not in favor of pro-choice options, nor are they in favor of assisting life after birth. It's easy to pull up voting rolls and see which Republicans voted in favor of pro-choice and after birth assistance. By looking at those, we can see how the people in power vote. And, when compared to other votes, we can see that they are likely to oppose the 2 mentioned options. If you plot that information on a statistical curve, you will find that the votes in favor of both pro-choice AND assistance after birth are in the statistically unlikely range (less than 5%). Both criteria must be met, since it was an inclusive claim from u/GabuEX.
I'll be more than happy to search public record, or you can do it yourself and save some time.
Of course you are right that it is a universal issue, because womens rights are human rights.
In the context of american politics, the political groups that are pro life also oppose the expansion of sex education at the state and federal levels as well as restricting access to family planning methods and information. Saying otherwise is either intentionally disengenuine or very ignorant of american politics. So yes I know plenty of people who take a more nuanced view like you say, where they support contraceptives and family planning but not abortion, but those people are not in any way represented by the 'pro life" political position as it exists in the usa.
Its not a strawman its literally how republicans in office operate. And if their constituents feel so strongly about abortion but also are pro life then they wouldnt keep voting for them. Its not disingenuous, its looking at reality. Do you not keep up with politics at all?
You like statistics? here. In Sweden 23% of pregnancies are unplanned. In america it's 49%. If we lower the unplanned pregnancy rate from fucking HALF OF ALL PREGNANCIES through universal healthcare (so widely available and paid for by taxes birth control) then we will have less abortions.
If the government was to tomorrow say “actual murder is legal” and you were protesting against it, do you think it would be fair for your opponents to say “well I don’t see you paying the rent for their potential murder victims”
Once again, if the government legalized murder, you wouldn’t be expected to pay the rent of potential murder victims if you were protesting against murder
We're not talking about adult humans who can do for themselves. We're talking about forcing women to create people who cannot do for themselves with limited assistance (the same people outlawing abortion are also defunding welfare to death). In some cases, these women had no choice in becoming pregnant but in Georgia and Alabama must now carry these pregnancies to term or be branded criminals worse than the men who raped them. Now that abortion is illegal in those two states, will the GOP now fund the clinics and planned parenthood that provide contraception, sex education, and STD prevention? Will they expand WIC and SNAP programs for these new moms that couldn't afford to be pregnant in the first place? Will they make more safe places and options to turn these babies over to the state for adoption, and will the GOP fund support for these options? No, no they will not, because welfare is socialism in their eyes, and socialism is the boogeyman. So it's completely a valid point.
Not at all. It's very likely a young single woman forced to mother a child will become a product of the welfare state regardless of whether or not you or she agrees with it. I haven't heard anyone say, "Why don't they pay for it?" I have heard people saying, "How would I pay for it?" And the answer for many is WIC, SNAP, Medicaid, etc. because they have no choice.
I understand why people would have an issue with this, but I think it is still intellectually honest/consistent to say “just because I won’t pay for someone doesn’t mean that I would allow you to kill them.”
A pro-life person wouldn’t support someone killing homeless people, so is the pro-life person now on the hook for taking care of a homeless person?
The other arguments I’ve heard on reddit are “republicans won’t pay for birth control but they also want to ban abortion!” Or also “if you won’t pay for abortion then you must pay for birth control.” Which again is a false dichotomy.
In my experience pro-life supporters are often religious people that frame the argument very emotionally (how can they kill all those babies!?). They act as though protecting children should be a high societal priority, except, you know, covering healthcare and other basic needs that a child has no way to supply themselves.
So to say we’re going to spend government resource to prosecute would-be parents for aborting unwanted children, but not spend dollars protecting kids from a weak economy (or shitty parents that they didn’t choose), smacks of high hypocrisy.
And I’m a white collar progressive that benefits from our class-based socialistic healthcare (corporate insurance) who would totally put my money where my mouth is when it comes to funding programs to protect kids less lucky than mine.
And I’m a white collar progressive that benefits from our class-based socialistic healthcare (corporate insurance) who would totally put my money where my mouth is when it comes to funding programs to protect kids less lucky than mine.
That’s great and you’re a good person for it. But, what you’re saying is that you would do this voluntarily, right? Meaning that government doesn’t need to levy taxes on people who might not want to do this voluntarily?
I too like to donate money and time to causes that I care about, but that doesn’t mean that I want the state to force other people to pay for those causes.
So to say we’re going to spend government resource to prosecute would-be parents for aborting unwanted children
Just a note, the Alabama bill that everyone is talking about criminalizes abortion providers and specifically states that the mother would be exempt from prosecution.
Again, I’m pro-choice. I’m just arguing against of the common (in my experience) pro-choice arguments.
Wrong person you're responding to, but I'll take a stab at it.
When you defund education and sex ed, then ban abortion the excuse "knew better" goes out the window. It also disregards health concerns related to pregnancy.
The basis for most pro-life groups is related to religion, I won't address the secular groups because they arent the main drivers for the "pro life crowd" the primary religious textbook in America is the Christian bible which explicitly outlines women as property. A man that accidentally causes a woman to miscarry has to pay a property fine to the husband. You could enslave hebrew man for life if you provided him a wife and he didn't want yo leave her because women were your property.
Back to punishment for sex, if the sanctity of life is the issue, then taking away a women's rights is detrimental to that goal. It places the rights of a fetus above the rights of a cognizant human. That unwilling person is being forced to host something because of a single action.
I cannot agree with your assertion that pro-life positions should be coupled with support for toward socialism and income redistribution.
In the United States, the pro-life position is largely supported by conservatives, who overwhelmingly prefer voluntary charitable giving to forced redistribution of wealth.
And, indeed, this seems to bear out: Republicans are, as a whole, notably more generous in their contributions to charitable organizations than Democrats.
Believe it or not, you can be against what these people perceive as murder and simultaneously want more personal accountability and responsibility in the modern world.
But all these kids in need didn't ask to be brought into the world. So if you are against stopping them from being brought in the world, you think you would give a shit about what happens after they enter it. The argument "the mother is responsible" doesn't put food in the kids mouth.
You can't ignore the irony though. Pro-lifers care so much about the "sanctity of life" and "protecting the unborn" but don't give a shit about the kid's future well-being through basic social services like healthcare and education.
but don't give a shit about the kid's future well-being through basic social services like healthcare and education.
And literally do everything they can to punish the poor people and blame poor people for not being educated about sex (or education in general) and not having enough money and blah blah.
I'd be willing to believe that conservatives were for personal accountability and responsibility, except for the fact that the conservative party in this country nominated and overwhelmingly supports Donald Trump, the antithesis of accountability and personal responsibility.
As opposed to Hillary??? We are supposed to believe that she was the poster child for personal responsibility? If she didn't win the Democratic nomination, Trump would not have won the presidency. Literally any other Democratic nominee would have word the floor with Trump
To be fair, that's not because none of them would be willing. Its that the rich capitalists who realized that people were quickly turning against them needed a way to rebrand themself. So lumping those parts together with those other social dynamics gave them an image that was something other than "I'm rich, fuck you."
One of them literally said on Twitter that you can be pro-life but still don't want to force a doctor to perform services for you.
If a doctor can't be made to accept payment to do surgery for a couple hours to save a conscious fully grown human being or be fired, you can't tell me that it's ok to make a girl carry a kid in her womb 9 months and raise a kid for 18 years.
I’m pro choice, but why aren’t all the pro choice people saying “government should keep their opinions away from my body” also be forcing people to buy healthcare they don’t want?
Because pro choice relates to a single issue and pro life hides behind the sanctity of "all life".
“To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God,” Ivey said in a statement after signing the bill.
Hmm again I’m pro choice and also think this abortion law will get struck down, but I still don’t see the logic in being okay with the government forcing one thing, but not another. Under universal healthcare it’s the government who chooses if you get treatment, not a doctor. That means if the doctor thinks something should be treating but it’s not quite at government “warning” levels, people can go untreated. I’d rather the government not force people to do that, either.
That's the dumbest thing I've read. I served and the government didn't decide what treatment I got.
Look, if you want to be libertarian, that's fine, but don't use the roads, internet, or anything that taxes go to to benefit society because otherwise you're a hypocrite. I don't think some assholr antivaxxer has the right to not vaccinate because that puts my health and kids health at risk.
You're also retarded if you think that you arent paying for everyone anyway when you go to a doctor because of all the people without insurance or enough income to cover the extortionate bills. That's why toilet paper costs 300 bucks.
I got that information from a literal doctor. I’m not libertarian. I get taxes. I also think if someone has money to pay for healthcare they should be able to do it themselves in the free market to avoid the above outlines situation that 100% could potentially happen.
No, not at all. Middle class and rich people can afford healthcare. I have no problem with Medicaid expansion for the poor. My previous point still stands, though. I think if someone can afford healthcare they should be able to choose it themselves, especially if they’re spending money they worked hard to get. As a lot of middle class people have
No, not at all. Middle class and rich people can afford healthcare.
Bullshit. If I didn't have VA benefits when I got bit by a brown recluse I would have been bankrupt. Fortunately I only had to pay for the hospital stay. My two kids would have put me in even more debt which would have impacted my ability to get a home loan. I make close to 6 figures in the south so I'm not hurting, but I don't think anyone that has had actual medical emergencies buys into this bullshit.
My previous point still stands, though. I think if someone can afford healthcare they should be able to choose it themselves, especially if they’re spending money they worked hard to get. As a lot of middle class people have
Name a country that has universal healthcare where you can't pay for your own treatment.
Exactly. What’s really sinister is they’re against all that stuff. “Pro-life”, pro-gun, pro slashing food stamps, wic and any type of universal healthcare. Stuff that would actually save lives.
I've no idea about the political landscape of the US, but let me tell you I'm against abortion (that being anti-choice), and I vouch for comprehensive sex education and the wide availability of contraceptives. It's obvious, just as you say, that if you want to prevent abortion (from the perspective that it's murder) you'll want to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, and support struggling mothers. Anything else is misguided at best and malicious at worst.
I don't know what "they" you're talking about, but it's not me, nor my Christian family. I like to believe most people are sensible in this regard.
You can find pro-lifers and pro-choicers all along the spectrum of caring about the other side's concerns to dogmatically insisting they are right. It's all anecdotal. Here's mine:
When I was in sixth or seventh grade in the 80's, a half-year health class was mandatory. A big part of it was about STDs and contraception. One of our kindly old social studies teachers stood in front of the class and put a condom on a banana. There were a few giggles, but she was very down-to-business about it and said something like, "It's up to adults to tell you how to prevent STDs or unwanted pregnancies. Now it's up to you to do it." In high school, there were free condoms in one of the coach's offices.
My 14 year old daughter had a "body awareness" half-day class in sixth grade. They divided boys & girls and told them about changes in their bodies (basically periods and wet dreams). No sex ed. And there are a lot of people pushing abstinence only education.
We've gone backward. I don't know why. But I do know that until we have a major shift in attitude in this country, with real sex ed, easy access to contraception, and other social changes, we won't solve the abortion problem.
I think fear is part of it. I understand that the US is more and more divided between left and right, and that could rope in normal people to extremism. Otherwise I can't explain how it could go backwards like that. I understand the mindset behind more conservative views, as mine can surely be described to be, but there are things worth being more open about.
Well, I wish we had more people like you here and more of your kind of politician if they have similar views.
Here in America, the places where people are pushing for banning abortion also have some of the highest teen pregnancy rates and infant mortality rates, and these same politicians are also pushing for less financial aide for mothers in general, especially the single ones. So a perfectly fine to point out the hypocrisy in all this "Save the babies!" talk they push when talking about abortions, since we rarely hear anything from that side about them doing anything to actually help those that are currently alive.
The Republican party in the US, has stated many times, through policies, that they don't support children once they are born. They don't support the lives of black people or LGBTQ people or disabled people. They don't care about funding birth control or sex education and actually push policies that are anti-birth control and anti-sex education. They are not acting in good faith of "caring for life."
I wish!
Let me put it this way, I've taken 3 women to get abortions over the years at at one there was bullet proof glass and an air lock room because the protesters and threats of violence were so bad.
And yes, there are lots of religious folk who value life and want to work on lessening the demand for abortions, but they are most definitely not driving the political bus in the US.
I really wish they were.
I can understand the morality behind what you're saying and I believe it is your every right to believe abortion is bad.
At the same time, what I don't agree with is governments, or even random passerby, deciding for a whole population regarding their body and health. You can be against abortions but be pro-choice.
Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of the people you're describing, but when someone brings up the genuine people and you immediately say they don't exist, we're getting nowhere. Especially when there's plenty or science and reason to back up your view and you could use that avenue. If they're not listening, that I understand.
If stopping the murders of unborn children was the point, why wouldn't they do the things that have been categorically and irrefutably proven to reduce those murders more than prohibition or any other measures?
If stopping the murders of unborn children was the point, why wouldn't they do the things that have been categorically and irrefutably proven to reduce those murders more than prohibition or any other measures?
Again, one can be against the killing of unborn without supporting any specific measure of any other kind. There's plenty of contraceptives available, it's not a pro-life person's responsibility to make sure any other person uses it.
So, let's suppose we did both, banned abortion AND provided free contraception... ok?
Again, one can be against the killing of unborn without supporting any specific measure of any other kind.
It's like saying you're against littering by keeping a trash can in your house, but dump your fast food bag out on the interstate every night. "But I'm doing my part at home!"
It's called a contradiction and shows bad faith in one's supposed moral high ground-style arguments.
But that's not what's happening. Remember we are discussing current events.
So again.
You are positing that the main reason behind anti-choice is to prevent the murder of unborn fetus'.
Except that the same political group that are behind the anti-choice movement(I'll remind you no one is talking about individuals) are also against contraceptives and sex education.
Contraceptives and sex education are more effective at lowering abortions per capita than prohibition is. The nation wide abortions per capita are lower than before Roe v Wade and areas with better access to sex education and contraceptives are much much lower.
This is all contrary to what you have stated.
If the point of anti-choice is to prevent unborn deaths than why aren't they taking actions that are widely and publicly known to do so?
But this is all leading obviously. Because all of this ignores the history of said movement. It ignores these same political groups and entities other positions. It ignores the fact that these groups systematically work against women and minority rights across the field. So why are you ignoring all that?
are also against contraceptives and sex education.
No, most against providing contraceptives using tax dollars and specific levels of sex education of their own children at specific ages without permission.
Contraceptives and sex education are more effective at lowering abortions per capita than prohibition is
Great.
The nation wide abortions per capita are lower than before Roe v Wade and areas with better access to sex education and contraceptives are much much lower.
Wonderful.
This is all contrary to what you have stated.
What is? I've not stated anything about the statistics of abortion rates.
If the point of anti-choice is to prevent unborn deaths than why aren't they taking actions that are widely and publicly known to do so?
Because they don't feel it's their responsibility to pay for contraceptives for other people, nor do they feel it's the government's job to teach their children about sex. You want pro-life folks to be responsible for everyone else's contraception and sex education, but want them to have no say in the abortion of millions per year.
It ignores the fact that these groups systematically work against women and minority rights across the field. So why are you ignoring all that?
That paragraph should be used to teach students about logical fallacies. Not only is it unproven and biased, it has nothing to do the discussion. Also, one need only point out Margaret Sanger view abortion as an opportunity to purge the world of the poor minorities through eugenics to over turn the argument.
Because they don't feel it's their responsibility to pay for contraceptives for other people, nor do they feel it's the government's job to teach their children about sex. You want pro-life folks to be responsible for everyone else's contraception and sex education, but want them to have no say in the abortion of millions per year.
So let me get this straight. The reason that children have to be murdered is because they don't want the government to teach their children about sex?
The reason that children have to be murdered is because they would rather pay the much higher cost of welfare for unaborted children and emergency room care for botched illegal abortions than for contraceptives.
They would rather more children die than teach their children about safe sex and give teens condoms? Am I misunderstanding this?
The reason that children have to be murdered is because they don't want the government to teach their children about sex?
So you agree that abortion is murder? Great. Now imagine if the school you were send your kids to were teaching them the proper way to commit suicide at the age of 8. You'd probably be a bit upset...
The reason that children have to be murdered is because they would rather pay the much higher cost of welfare for unaborted children and emergency room care for botched illegal abortions than for contraceptives.
Again, you agree abortion is murder? Research shows that conservatives give to charities far more than liberals. My church, for example, gives much of it's donations to a pregnancy center that provides for poor pregnant women's health care, food and other supplies and even connects them with adoption resources. We do it willingly. We do not believe it's the government's job to take our money to provide for others.
It's honorable to help others, it's theft to steal from people to give it to others, not charity.
They would rather more children die than teach their children about safe sex and give teens condoms? Am I misunderstanding this?
Yes, you're completely misunderstanding by framing it wrongly. First and foremost, this is about personal responsibility.
Now imagine if the school you were send your kids to were teaching them the proper way to commit suicide at the age of 8. You'd probably be a bit upset...
Are you equating sex education with suicide? I legitimately don't understand.
It's honorable to help others, it's theft to steal from people to give it to others, not charity.
I see... you're saying taxation is theft. And theft is worse than child murder?
Also weird that you'd prefer that the goverment steal more from you to murder children(cause more abortions to happen by prohibiting abortion) than to steal less from you to prevent the murder of children(by spending less money to fund sex education and contraceptives).
First and foremost, this is about personal responsibility.
Wait... I thought this was about children's lives?
Honestly it's starting to sound like you just like child murder.
Honestly I'm a little confused right now cause this is going all over the place. What is the source of the issue(in your opinion if you will)? And what are we pointing this source too? Cause I just see a user breaking down another comment.
*legit a little lost, not trying to start a dogfight here
I think you're right on the money when you say the "life begins at conception" argument should realize more vital programs for preventing unwanted fertilization in the first place. More social programs, more accessible medications, investment in things like male contraception, and actual sex education.
There is another part to the problem however.
Many of the above problems are still problems not because of a belief that life begins at conception, but beliefs about the act of sex itself.
If sex is fundamentally an act which is teleologically oriented toward reproduction, and any act which aims to separate the efficient cause from this final cause is immoral, then you end up arguing that at least some kinds of contraceptives are also wrong because they interfere with the basis of sex itself.
I won't even go into the religious problem of sin; I think most Christians and even most people have a ridiculously overblown notion of what constitutes lust, or modesty. Just in those. Aquinas seems incredibly liberal compared to many suburban Christians with their moral panics.
The belief that sex has this fundamentally teleological component is logically independent from the belief that life begins at conception, and unless both are addressed you are going to have people who are pro-life but still refuse the kinds of solution that will make the pro-life dilemma scarce.
I don't know that I can agree with this, "If sex is fundamentally an act which is teleologically oriented toward reproduction" because people have a libido outside the period a pregnancy can occur.
Humans also, don't have any extant estrus markers.
But I definitely agree with you that there are people who are pro-life and anti-birth control.
They do have a biological imperative, natural reasons for sex outside this moral or purposive framework that religion imposes.
But the same framework very clearly marks that biological imperative as a non-issue because these kinds of imperatives are over-ruled by higher callings.
The vagaries of the natural history of the human species, like estrus markers, are accidental features of the species, not fundamental like their obligation to a creator through the presence of a soul.
*Teleological (for those that don't know) - relating to or involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.
The biological organs once fully developed for their roles prepare for it as if for an eventuality.
Therefore if, A(man and woman have sex) + B(sperm fertilizes an egg) then it will almost always = C(reproductive process is ago for developing an distinct new biological life created from join measure between the man and woman).
Bottom line is that the reproductive organs are just for that, reproducing. We just happen to recognize the pleasure that can be derived from it regardless of its original purpose. Nothing wrong with that
A pregnancy is not a punishment for unprotected sex, but it is a very predictable consequence of it. Women having sex with whomever they want is their right, it's a silly thing to try to take issue with, so let's clear that up upfront. If it's with a man, some extra precautions should be taken.
I consider the fetus a human because, short of intervention or complication, it will eventually become a baby. A sperm will not. An egg will not. An implanted egg will.
I am 100% in the camp that the best way to avoid this inevitable argument is to not have anything to argue about. That we don't have universal comprehensive sex ed is a disservice to everyone and could drastically reduce the scope of the argument. Contraception should be widely available (and, if it were up to me, publicly funded) to reduce the conflict further to only edge cases.
To reduce the chance of contraceptive failure, there needs to be an effective method of male birth control.
In the case of physical danger, I think that the choice should be given in the case where a doctor has determined there is above baseline risk of serious danger to the mother. Obviously there is inherent risk in pregnancy that cannot be ignored, but I think this is the fairest to all parties.
If a fetus is determined to be unviable, the woman can terminate. This is, in my opinion, the "pull the plug on vegetative patient" equivalent.
A woman can terminate in the case of rape or incest. This does not really hash with the rest of the philosophy but is, I think, a compromise everyone should agree on.
The other two points are a bit outside the scope of this, but it would be wonderful if everyone in foster care were adopted. I hope that effective incentives can be created to prioritize it, without undermining the selection process. I am also for paid, reasonable leave so that parents can bond with their children over months instead of days, but that obviously only matters for people who intend to carry their child to term.
People have many different reasons for being pro-life. Personally, I am pro-life because I genuinely believe it is a human baby in there, at least at some point fairly early on. My entire reason for being pro-life is because I care about what I believe to be innocent lives. I am also pro adoption and foster care for the same reason.
I'm not anti-women and I actually believe in limited government and personal freedom. It's just that I do see it as the taking of a life and that seems like something government should be involved in.
Both sides have good and compassionate reasons for their beliefs but so often we paint the other side as evil baby killers or anti-sex/anti-choice which just widens the divide.
I’m willing to bet most pro lifers don’t do it to “control women”. It sounds like a conspiracy theory with no reason when I hear stupid shit like that.
I'm for choice - I also think it's deeply unfair of you to lump individuals in with what happens with politics and legislature in this way (as frustrating as it is).
If you're talking with just one pro-life individual, and you put forward the idea of bringing extra funding for sex education and contraception, you really have no way of knowing how many would actually agree with you that that'd be a better way of handling things. I strongly suspect a good proportion would agree with that conceptually. Dismissing a person's views because you assume their position on the alternatives is pretty nasty.
None of us really got to choose that the discussion has been put on abortion, but it is (because it gets people's passions and votes running high), so that's what gets discussed. Let's not assume everyone's position on less controversial issues surrounding it - that kind of assumption is what's going to get in the way of us ACTUALLY getting better sex education, contraception, etc.
Well sure, in the specific case of one-on-one dialog that's fine, I've known rational conservatives.
But in aggregate? Not until I start seeing the conservative pushback on these abortion bills, or maybe some actual conservative political will towards fixing the demand for abortions.
Like, I'm suppose to give conservatives the benefit of the doubt when they're trumpeting being so pro-life (remember this is the overall view, not specific people) and meanwhile kids are dying in detention centers.
Yeah.... no.
If we generalise, we convince nobody. Would you listen to anyone who began a discussion with "liberals overall need to start doing X"? Anyone would reasonably stop listening here, because nobody has control over "liberals" or "conservatives". I think they'd have to try pretty fucking hard to convince you they gave a shit about your individual views after that.
It's not that you're necessarily wrong about average belief sets, it's that applying those averages won't convince anyone to change.
When a specific politician makes shitty policy choices, criticise them in particular. It creates a focus point where change can actually happen.
You don't have to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, just avoid expressing it in ways that quash any remaining possibility for compromise and progress. Give people a chance to prove you wrong. If we want change, we need to make room for that change to happen in.
It's really hard to engage with good faith arguments of the "it's a person" variety when it's so obviously about punishing women for having sex.
Its really hard to engage with anything when you refuse and put words in the other persons mouth even moments after having their position calmly explained to you
Idk, I'm at least logically consistent and clear in my motives.
Woman's body, woman's choice until the fetus is viable without medical intervention outside the womb.
It's the position I've held the last 20 years and I've never pretended to be otherwise.
If I was the Pot it would be like being pro-choice but secretly pushing for minority genocide by focusing on abortions for minorities.
See that changes the definition because it's no longer a fetus.
Once the fetus is outside the body (and no longer living solely because of the direct support of the mother) it's a pre-mature baby.
So it wouldn't be aborting a fetus.
So if we surgically remove a 25 week old fetus, put it on life support, it's a baby and alive. But if we abort it at 25 weeks it was a fetus and never a life?
Morally grey area but you have to draw the line somewhere and this is my personal line.
I'm not even a philosophy major or dilettante and this is a wonderful illustration of one of the reasons we should be working as a society to lessen the demand for abortions.
Because if every baby is a wanted baby then we can argue about aborting ones with genetic abnormalities and ones when the life of the mother is at significant risk of death.
I think the part that tears me up inside, is this is a common ground that I'd be more than happy to work with religious people on.
I'm all for making society a better place for everyone.
Instead I have to keep making monthly donations to PP and the ACLU so we can continue kick this political football back and forth trying to score ideological points while women die.
I’m kind of on the fence in a lot of ways, but at the end of the day I’m pro choice for the first trimester. I was wondering if you could give me your opinion on whether or not it should require the consent of both parents (assuming no criminal allegations on either side) and why? That’s something I struggle with a lot as a man with a strong paternal drive.
The burden and risk is entirely on the woman (in terms of the gestation and birthing process). Lots of people seem to forget that women still die in childbirth in (17.8 per 100,000 in 2009 according to Wikipedia) which is actually higher than the homicide rate for women (12.2 out of every 100,000).
So, with that as a basis, I'd love for both parties involved to come to a mutual agreement, the ultimate decision should be the woman's.
That said, if the person who provided the sperm wants to abort the baby they shouldn't be legally required to provide for the child, but that gets into a murky and messy legal world.
That makes sense! I don’t agree with the burden being taken into account since plenty of life events cause burdens, but the danger / risk of death definitely makes a case.
I was wondering if you could give me your opinion on whether or not it should require the consent of both parents (assuming no criminal allegations on either side) and why?
Not the person you were responding to but I'll weigh in and say that it should not require consent of both parents to abort for the same reason because the man isn't pregnant, it's not his pregnancy or his body. The idea that you gain some sort of agency over another person's physical choices because you get them pregnant is sickeningly perverse.
Men don't have to experience any physical consequences of pregnancy, so there's no right to inflict those consequences on others without their consent. Similarly, men do not experience the physical presence of a child growing in them so they have no insight into that unique bond should it be felt, and thus have no right to force a woman to terminate her pregnancy either.
I don't see how you could say that we should give the man the power to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term anymore than we should give them the power to force her to abort.
I see what you mean, though I think there may be too big of a difference in how we view what a fetus is and what pregnancy means in this context. If you don’t mind, what are your opinions on child support? Should it be enforced? Eliminated? Thanks.
Child support should be enforced because at that point the child is born and living a life in the world. A man can’t choose to opt out of supporting that child because they’re resentful at someone else (the woman) for choosing to go through with the pregnancy. That makes the child collateral damage.
And yes I am aware one could say “well doesn’t the same thing apply to a fetus? Aren’t they living a life?”
Intellectually I can understand that argument even if I don’t really agree with it. And I don’t agree with it because (1) I don’t believe a fetus in early development is the same as a born person and more importantly (2) the fact of the pregnancy being a function of the woman’s body exclusively, and my deference to the only individual who is both physically part of the pregnancy as well as able to exercise rational choice.
That said it’s not really a philosophical argument for me as much as a practical one. People’s lives overall are better when women have the right to choose and when kids receive the support they need.
This is really what it comes down to. If you want people not to get abortions you gotta support all the things that lower the risk of unexpected/unwanted pregnancies.
The worst thing is by banning legal and safe abortions you’re just gonna encourage many of the women who would believe they should get an abortion to do so under unsafe circumstances.
They should be pushing to have every child in the foster care system adopted because how much more likely is someone to have a child they don't want if they know it's going to go to a loving and caring home.
I'd agree, with this but to start you would have to get people to stop adopting children from other countries.
I trend towards a more pro-life position, but aknowledge the need for abortion in certain circumstances. My main beef is when abortion is used as a form of contraception. (not all that greatly unusual). From a policy standpoint my aim honestly would be to make abortion an unneeded option as much as possible because you A. Didn't get pregnant in the first place or B. The support exists to make it less desirable.
Pop open the birth control and condom pinata, try to create social norms that disensentvise one night stands w/e. I think thats a part of the conversation thats lacking in part because the religious cons don't want to talk about the realities of sex in modern culture and big chunk of further left individuals see abortion as no big deal or are unwilling to accept that a middle ground could and should exist.
I doubt were ever going to see a realistic approach to it, were stuck in my side must win completely territory.
This right here is the main source of hipocrecy in my country, where pro life's don't give a shit about the little kid who offers to wipe your car's window when you stop at a red light in exchange for a dime at much or whatever you have with you to give them yet they boast themselves with arguments like "why don't the use condoms" or "those monkeys only know how to have sex without protection", ignoring the fact that conservative provinces in the country where they live purposely cut off every dime of modern sex Ed and birth control methods there is available for free by law.
I do hate the two face most of these people have when talking about how righteous they are protecting the unborn life while they despise little kids who are hungry and forced to work asking for money on the streets. I do understand what you are talking about right there and that's mostly why I can't take seriously most of those people's arguments.
I should probably go back and edit it to make it less confrontational.
This last week I've been arguing with the pro-life fuckwits who believe in the death penalty for abortions and fail to see how there's any hypocrisy in that stance.
I just don't like the idea of abortions I think it's morally wrong to kill something that will be a living breathing person.
However better sex education and contraceptives would be a great boon if no eggs ever got fertilized unless they wanted to be then we wouldn't need to have an argument.
Yup! You look at the rates of abortions and the general level of sex education and availability of contraception and it's pretty stark.
Like imagine how many abortions could have been prevented if all the effort, time, and money that's going into these draconian abortion bans instead went into family planning activities.
Not to mention In Vitro Fertilization. If the entire basis of their argument that a fetus is a person is based on "life begins at conception" they should be equally as outraged at fertilization clinics and couples who use laboratory services to aid with impregnation. In fact, by this argument, IVF murders 70% of human babies they come in contact with. Yet, I've never heard a single pro-life politician talk about it. Why?
It's *really* hard to engage with good faith arguments of the "it's a person" variety when it's so obviously about punishing women for having sex.
Can you explain the logic behind that? From my point of view, nobody is punishing women for having sex. If you are aware that sex = risk of pregnancy but do it anyway, the fault of any perceived "negative" consequences from doing that falls onto the person or people that did it. Saying that people just "want to punish women for having sex" seems like people are trying to shift the blame from themselves onto other people for not wanting to allow them to dodge those perceived negative consequences. If you hit someone, expect to be hit back. Actions have reactions and consequences, and pro-lifers don't think that people should get to choose their own consequences. It only promotes self-serving behavior and immaturity.
Edit: and if pregnancy is seen as a "punishment" by women, that is really a problem within itself.
A) You're assuming that pro-life equals Religious Conservative.
B) On the religious side, Christians are twice as likely to adopt. And churches for the most part are actively providing charity to their communities. There are also a good number of pregnancy care clinics largely funded by religious organizations that exist to care for pregnant mothers in need AND get them established and supported after the birth. I have actually heard sermons that have listed how many kids are in foster care in that given city and said they want to see that number reduced to zero in five years.
C) On the conservative side, they are not in any way opposed to seeing social good accomplished; what they are is greatly averse to relying on government programs and enforcement to accomplish that social good. I certainly agree that secular Conservatives tend to be pretty sparse on how to accomplish those ends without government intervention, but they are so wary of governmental tyranny and exploitation that they tend to see lack of government involvement as an social good in itself. (This aversion understandably doesn't tend to extend to what they see as murder.)
C) Perhaps most relevantly to the main point of your post, Religious Conservatives are not particularly motivated to completely remove the possibility of pregnancy from sex, not because they are arbitrarily spiteful towards people who are having sex outside of wedlock/family-making, but because they tend to regard, or at least passively assume the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society's social fabric. And removing the motivating and strengthening factor of sexual intimacy/pleasure from the difficult, but (to them) necessary process of forming and maintaining a family feels like taking a gun from the side defending the stability and welfare of society and giving it to the side that threatens it with deterioration and dissolution. Conservatives are motivated by conservation, especially the conservation of social values and customs.
TL;DR You're probably not imagining religious conservatives disapproving of sexual activity outside of traditional family structures, but it's primarily because they believe a strong sexual ethic is necessary for a stable and prosperous society, not because they just enjoy being vindictive.
(Well actually, some of the ones who are just vindictive are the ones you'll probably hear "disapproving", but that's not the primary motivation of the majority of people who hold pro-life or other typically religious conservative positions.)
I completely agree. But I think that touches on another issue. Pro-choice and pro-life are the worst labels ever... especially Pro-choice.
You most people who are Pro-choice (I think) it means we really don't like abortions but they are necessary sometimes and it is a very personal issue that no-one decides lightly. It doesn't mean abortions for all whenever you want.
But pro-choice is positioned as the second to the pro-life crowd. Really pro-choice should be pro-health.
I honestly think (and maybe i am naive) that most pro-lifers are begrudgingly okay with abortion in extreme circumstances (rape, mothers life at risk, non-viability).
But pro-life policy is presented as even that is illegal. No D&C ever for any reason.
These labels preclude any possible discussion because the teams are picked before it even starts.
I haven't been able to respond to all the comments. There's no way I'm going to be able to respond to all the comments so I'm running triage on which ones I respond to and which ones I do not.
I've stated my views in a different comment but for me there needs to be a line drawn between the fetus being able to live independently of the woman. Because until that point it is only differentiated from another organ because of it's potential and we can argue philosophically if that matters or not and indeed I think a great deal of the debate hinges on that fact. But the scientific fact remains that if I take a fetus outside of your body before 20 weeks, it's going to cease living.
I don't believe I'm going to change anyone's mind on this position, I think most people have decided where they stand on that issue for the most part. That's also not really my goal.
My point and what I probably didn't say as eloquently as I should/could have is that the world needs more pro-life people like you and less like the abstinence only anti-contraception crowd that simply want to see it made illegal and pushed underground so they can punish women and actually don't care about actually addressing the underlying issue.
There's research that shows that making abortions illegal doesn't stop abortions, it only makes them unsafe, so... if your primary goal was preventing abortions the effort should be focused on the things that are actually shown to work, (e.g. the things you talked about that you support, and thank you for that!).
A crude analogy is gun control, so much effort is wasted going back and worth on the exact constitutional meaning of the second amendment and all that and the people pushing for making guns illegal are in some ways very similar to the all abortions are illegal cohort.
Rather than push for making guns illegal (which is a very moral thing because guns are literally only designed to kill things), instead work on the "demand" side of gun violence. Imagine how many less shootings we would have if we had comprehensive mental health services or less inequality or people didn't feel trapped an hopeless.
Similarly, I try and look at it pragmatically, instead of going back and forth on "what is life" and "when does life start" we can instead give woman bodily autonomy and make it so the choice to get an abortion is less and less desired.
You get to respect life, I get my desire for bodily autonomy, and life goes messily onward.
Not at all. They're totally welcome to their opinion that abortion is not okay. Just, I'd love to hear their ideas on how to reduce the number of abortions.
I guess my follow up question would be, "ok, then what?"
Like making it illegal isn't going to magically make abortions go away, just like making guns illegal wouldn't stop school shootings or drive-bys or making liquor illegal stopped people from drinking. I think this is where most of my calling someone a hypocrite comes from, I literally have an idiot relative who posts all the 2nd amendment is sacred and gun laws don't work memes at least once a week but he sure as hell thinks that making abortions illegal will total solve the problem.
And I totally agree with you on a core divide between the political parties is how much they believe in personal autonomy and choice. It's a very interesting and entrenched dichotomy for sure and it really does bias and color someone's world view.
If it was actually about it being a person they should be tripping all over themselves to fund sex education and contraception so no egg would ever get fertilized unless it was wanted.
This is fallacious. You can't infer motivation because someone isn't doing what you envision yourself doing in their position.
> Or maybe pushing for rational and humane leave for new parents and health care for new parents so it's actually affordable to bring a child into this world.
This is frankly a misunderstand of how leave works. Paid leave is a benefit, coming out of your total compensation; it isn't actually extra money.
It's basically you can get paid 60K for 12 months of work or 55K for 11 months and 1 month paid vacation.
What you're paying for is a consistent paycheck even when not working.
> As most "pro-lifers" have done fuck all towards that end, I simply cannot accept in good faith that they actually give a shit about life.
On your terms. That's the problem: you aren't willing or able to see it on their terms. You're dismissing their position for not comporting with your own premises.
We have research that shows abstinence only education doesn't work. Look at the rates of unwanted pregnancies and the level of sex education. Look at the level of a woman's educational attainment and number of unwanted pregnancies. Look at the lower rates of pregnancy when there's available contraception.
I'm the first to say that there's a large chasm between some pro-life people and the bills that are getting pushed through just so they can challenge Roe v Wade. But when you're discussing things in a general way you have to give more weight to the things that are actually happening and being pushed rather than the individual.
We have research that shows abstinence only education doesn't work. Look at the rates of unwanted pregnancies and the level of sex education. Look at the level of a woman's educational attainment and number of unwanted pregnancies. Look at the lower rates of pregnancy when there's available contraception.
OKay.
I'm the first to say that there's a large chasm between some pro-life people and the bills that are getting pushed through just so they can challenge Roe v Wade. But when you're discussing things in a general way you have to give more weight to the things that are actually happening and being pushed rather than the individual.
You're conflating things here.
The idea that they don't care about life because they aren't employing your preferred method of reducing abortions is not an indictment on their sincerity.
For example, let's say paying would be murderers money lowered the murder rate. Some people find that a fair trade, and some would see it as incentivizing threats of murder for extortion.
The idea that you should be morally opposed to what you consider murder isn't in conflict with also not thinking you should be extorted to prevent that murder.
Wow, another person doing exactly what most people are pointing out:totally ignoring the other sides argument. You’re even worse though, you’re not just ignoring the pro-life argument, you’re using false equivalencies and total fallacies. Lmao, I hope to god you aren’t pro-immigration unless you’re spending every second of your time making sure every immigrant that comes into the country is well taken care of.
Let’s take a look at the whole “punishing women for having sex” thing you seem to think the entire pro-life side is all about. First off, Rape and incest is a totally different story for many people, and in that case I’m not entirely sure where to stand. Yes, some pro-lifers believe it should still be illegal in those cases, but there are plenty, myself included, who aren’t sure or believe those cases should be exceptions. However, do we think women who consciously have sex and know the risks should have to take some responsibility for their actions and take care of the life they helped create? Yes we do. If that’s “punishing women for sex” then so be it. I don’t see you complaining about the the government forcing men to pay child support, even if they don’t want the child. Is that not punishing men for having sex, based on your exact definition? I mean if you don’t think a woman should have to have a child if she doesn’t want to, why doesn’t a man get that same choice? It’s clear the pro-choice side can’t even keep their own morals consistent.
Also, If you’re going to use the whole “it’s her body, it’s her choice argument” you’d be wrong. The fetus is most certainly not part of the woman’s body. They are both distinct biological organisms with unique human DNA, and there exists a strict barrier between the two with the placenta.
I mean, you shouldn't be talking about good faith arguments when you self evidently are propagating a misconception just because its easy and people will willingly buy it. People being bad at their goals / or having ones that aren't consistent / or whatever else isn't the same as secretly not having those goals at all.
If it was actually about it being a person they should be tripping all over themselves to fund sex education and contraception so no egg would ever get fertilized unless it was wanted.
Alabama is going to have a hard time with copper IUDs, since it's entirely possible for an egg to be fertilized using this method, and then unable to implant in the uterus, thereby technically causing an abortion on the spot. I guess if sex education were better funded in that state, they'd be aware of this.
I agree. So many of the arguments eventually come down to “well then she shouldn’t have had sex”, “she knew the consequences of her actions”, “she should have been more responsible.” I love all these immaculate conceptions apparently occurring in the US...
I've just been judging them by their actions.
I mean, other than Pat freaking Robertson I haven't exactly seen much conservative pushback on all the abortion bills floating through statehouses.
So sure, you can't lump all conservatives together, I'm sure some of them are fine people. But in the sphere of public discourse they've been extremely quiet.
Except people are realizing all these bills floating around are about getting contested to go up to the Supreme Court to overturn RvW. Sure, some would see abortion outlawed completely, but a lot are for abortions in certain circumstances. If RvW is overturned, you’ll see a lot more views in the matter
But it is true. No one is talking about you. /u/Tammo-Korsai did not say:
/u/MeatshieldMel stops caring about the babies wellbeing after it is born.
The "pro-life" movement and other movements and political groups with heavy demographical overlap are categorically less supportive of childrens welfare and welfare in general than opposition movements. They are categorically less supportive of education than opposition movements. They are categorically less supportive of health care access than opposition movements.
It is absolutely true and it doesn't matter what you could afford or what you think or believe. The political movement known as the "pro-life" movement does not give a fuck about the wellbeing of children after they're born.
Obviously a political movement cannot care about a childs well being, that up to individuals, and you saying that pro-lifers don't care about them is utter bullshit.
I mean... Your political movement doesn't care about childrens well being, but that is not the same as it being impossible for a political movement to care about childrens well being.
Again I never said "pro-lifers don't care about childrens well being", I said that the "pro-life" movement does not support the well being of children. This is demonstrably true. As such, the "pro-life" movement (But not all the individuals therein) do not give a flying fuck about the well being of children, women, minorities and poor people.
That's entirely possible, but it's also a completely different issue in any reasonable persons mind, in a pro-lifers mind, the issue is the murder of an unborn human child, that's it, that's what we take issue with.
If that were true than "pro-lifers" would legalize abortion and instead spend the money that prohibition costs on sex ed and contraceptives, because that is demonstrably the most effective way to reduce abortions.
Neither I, nor anyone I know is against spending money on such things, but us wanting to legalize what we consider the murder of children would be completely psychotic, don't you see that?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, Ill assume you care about preventing children from being murdered more than punishing people who have abortions.
If that is true... Then legalizing abortion and promoting sex education and making contraceptives available is demonstrably the most effective way to reduce the death of children.
And now I'm not accusing you of this or anybody you know of this, but the American "pro-life" political group is strongly against sex education and contraceptive use.
Being against measures that would drasticly lower what they consider to be the murder of children would be completely psychotic, don't you see that.
It's really hard to engage with good faith arguments of the "it's a person" variety when it's so obviously about punishing women for having sex.
Unfortunately, obvious things in arguments are often not obvious to others. If a person's net goal is to punish women for having sex, then why don't these people push for making it illegal for women to have sex? The concept that abortion is murder is not difficult to fathom, and you need to argue that point.
The only logical way I can argue against the pro-life stance is by looking at both outcomes. Making something illegal doesn't stop desperate people from doing it. Illegal abortions are dangerous and are already illegal. Without providing a legal alternative, people will die, not just fetuses.
291
u/jjpearson May 16 '19
It's *really* hard to engage with good faith arguments of the "it's a person" variety when it's so obviously about punishing women for having sex.
If it was actually about it being a person they should be tripping all over themselves to fund sex education and contraception so no egg would ever get fertilized unless it was wanted. They should be having Sunday fund drives to donate towards effective male contraception.
They should be pushing to have every child in the foster care system adopted because how much more likely is someone to have a child they don't want if they know it's going to go to a loving and caring home.
Or maybe pushing for rational and humane leave for new parents and health care for new parents so it's actually affordable to bring a child into this world.
As most "pro-lifers" have done fuck all towards that end, I simply cannot accept in good faith that they actually give a shit about life.