I've received a warning for "Outward Prejudice" but nothing specific was cited so I'll chalk it up to the moderators' bigotry. It's very clearly a far-left echo chamber in here (with the exception of a few fine folks), what with open hostility to dissent and handing out punishment for wrongthink, so just feel free to ban me if you need to reduce the diversity of thought here back to a cool zero. I won't even bother to circumvent it--promise. For the record, I've not expressed any prejudice whatsoever, nor do I intend to ever do so, and I'd appreciate others refraining from libelous accusations made without any evidence at all beyond "he doesn't believe exactly as I do".
I pose a question for all to ponder whether I'm still to be here or not, and hopefully it can incite some genuine introspection. What do you have to say to the survivors or failed abortion?
To the surviving WOMEN of failed abortion procedures intended to murder them, specifically? They should have been killed, their rights don't matter, their voices don't? If you've ever pretended to care about minorities but support unrestricted abortion then you actually don't. Failed abortion survivors are the minority of minorities, the ultimate minority without any legal advocates. They are the few people who survived against all odds, against your decision that they should not be allowed to live, whose God-given rights were revoked by man. Walking reminders of sin if there ever were, these women deserved a choice too!
Talk about prejudice.
I never said "women have to be pregnant". Expecting women and women only to control when they have intercourse doesn't bode well with many people, and for good reason. I'll spare you the birds and the bees for the most part, but some couples like to have a good sexual relationship.
Women can't choose what happens to their bodies, but at least they're not dead. :/
Veganism is a choice, much like what you choose to do with your body. I'll be honest with you, this is a very asinine take.
I don't think anyone is expecting women exclusively to control when they have intercourse, but I agree that as a social issue it needs to pertain to both sexes. And sexual relationships are viable while avoiding pregnancy, I'll spare you the sex ed class but there's myriad methods for this.
As for veganism, it is indeed a choice but in that scenario there's no murder of another being resulting in said choice, let alone that of human life.
God forbid we focus on the person who has to live and deal with a problem instead of someone forcing no option on her. If you don't want to have an abortion fine, and it's not like you even have any tax dollars used on it, but being anti-abortion as a law is literally anti-woman, you cannot work your way around that. Forcing a group of people to be persecuted and not given a choice in their actions is that.
What's funny is there is a rise in women regretting having kids, but in a time where most people live paycheck to paycheck and we have a serious climate crisis that will effect any child's future greatly, it's no wonder people don't have kids as much now, and those that do regret it more.
Also the constitution was written 250 years ago by slaveowners and rapists who couldn't even give equal rights themselves, something the courts confirmed in Marbury v Madison, sometimes you have to think how something affects society today. Again, I am a gun owner myself, and we seriously need some changes, starting with general law enforcement demilitarization.
God forbid we focus on the other person who has to suffer the consequences of the decision others make for them, leaving them no choice but to be slaughtered even in a viable state. Anti-abortion is not anti-woman no matter how much you asset that untruth, it's in fact pro-woman since female infants are disproportionately targeted by abortion, as well as black infants. By your logic being against the disproportionate targeting of black pregnant women for abortion means one is anti-black but that couldn't be any further from the truth. You are not the arbiter of morality--people who value all female and black lives are not anti-woman or anti-black. There are women who are pro-life, so to pretend that to be anti-abortion is to be anti-woman is actually quite misogynistic.
There's probably as many women who regret having abortions as there are those who regret having kids, so that's not a great point. You know what will affect kids' future more than climate change though? Not having one. Very weak point there too.
The U.S Constitution was written by some of the best people on Earth at the time, a time rife with savagery and oppression. Rape and slavery was not some exclusively American issue, it existed long, long before America was ever even close to existing and it ended here over 150 years ago while it still persists to this day elsewhere. Progress is a long, difficult road. No, Madison didn't have purple hair and nose rings but he didn't have to oppose the concepts of racial inferiority at all yet he did. Your unfair, simplistic and disingenuous outlook on history betrays your wealth of ignorance on the subject.
If I may be allowed to give an answer to that question to offer, perhaps not all points related but some that are relevant to understand this. I know how you feel because I too was anti-abortion except in special cases like rape, the birth being dangerous to the women or the fetus' birth being unsustainable, as it would die soon after birth.
But I've talked this issue with other people and it has opened up my mind a quite bit. Truth be told the idea of killing a fetus still doesn't entirely sit well with me, but I can understand the arguments in favour of this when you consider everything else. As you've mentioned, there are two sides here to consider, the rights of the woman to choose and the rights of the fetus/embryo/baby whatever you choose to call it that it has fundamentally no voice and is virtually defenseless. Sure defending the fetus sounds noble and worthy of praise because it is standing up for something that cannot fight for itself or talk.....................BUT there is a problem with that, by which by defending the fetus' right to live, you instantly trample over the woman's rights because she has no other choice but to carry the fetus, ergo the woman status effectively becomes incubator and is thus reduced pretty much to a sub-human level i.e. the rights of an unborn being eclipsing those of an actual adult person and member of society. You cannot defend the rights of the fetus without in some way causing injury to the status/rights of the woman because ultimately the burden falls on her the most.
A woman's ability to choose is thus FUNDAMENTAL for a woman's capacity to exercise rights as a person that shouldn't be downgraded. As you said well too, perhaps the most troubling issue is finding consensus on when do we consider the fetus to be a living person, since biologically speaking it IS a parasite. Several countries thus decide to hold certain thresholds for when you can abort or not, which is fairly reasonable given fetuses don't have heartbeat or brain, or respiratory system until much later and some of these are essential to meet the criteria of a living being scientifically speaking.
But beyond that there is another pressing matter. Say you force the women to have those children, then who takes care of them? you could argue that adoption would be a solution and that would technically be true...................if only each and every orphaned kid was already taken over, and we all know orphanages over the globe still have tons of kids left without any family to take care of them properly, thus we know that "supply and demand" do not meet, and the consequence is kids left to fend by themselves, and once they turn 18.............good luck!! But you know, this could be resolved quite easy, all we have to do is make sure every person chanting for anti-abortion and get babies into the world is made to adopt every single one of them!! Babies are not aborted, they get to protect lives and beyond all they are made responsible for what their actions cause, everyone wins right? errrr nope............
"But I don't have enough money" some will say "I already have 3-4 kids, I cannot deal with 1 more" others will say, and just throw any other argument by which all these anti-abortion people will give you to say they won't be adopting kids, and you know? that's fine, having kids and taking care of them IS costly, IS difficult, IS taxing, so not having to deal with all of that is a fine choice if you aren't up to the task. BUT then what about the women forced to do the same when they can meet one or all of the conditions needed to "not be up to the task"? Why force them to give birth when they cannot take care of them the same way the anti-abortion people can't or won't? Why force kids into the world knowing that none of few of them will be adopted by the anti-abortion people for any reason, or just not be adopted by any family in general regardless of their stance on the matter? When someone is anti-abortion and isn't willing to adopt, that's one kid in the world and one less family to adopt them, and there are millions of families unable or unwilling to adopt and those are millions of homes the kid won't be in, or just say the woman "raises" the kid without actually wanting, I can only imagine how that dysfunctionality is going to work so well. Yes not all cases like this end in tragedy or a bad family, but that's not the norm, and because it isn't the norm it means you have many woman-kid relationships that are just hazardous for everyone and don't work out well for nobody, and so long as that happens, forcing down births is just a bad idea for everyone.
"But life matters and should be protected!!" yeah ok, then I'll ask you quite honestly........does life only matter when you're a fetus? if the argument is that life is precious, must be protected and only God can take it away, then why not offer GENEROUS Cradle to Grave benefits to take care of that life? Life is precious in all stages of life, when you're a baby, when you're a kid, when you're a teen, when you're an adult, when you're an elder, and not giving out said benefits to ensure to wellbeing of that person is actively participating on that person's lifestate decline, and potentially causing its death in one way or another. Inaction in this case is not neutrality, it is being complicit, but see if any anti-abortion politician is gonna be on board with giving out such benefits OR even adopting one of those kids, and all you'll hear is crickets, see the hypocrisy now? This little caricature here illustrates the issue perfectly
A bit back to the original question and why does this all happen? The answer to that is simple, if women are given the ability to choose, that alone equates to female empowerment. Who loses with female empowerment? PATRIARCHY. That's it. This is WHY anti-abortion is anti-woman, because by preventing woman from choosing and forcing them into giving birth regardless of how they feel about it, or their ability to handle it, this sole fact of obligating them to give birth, instantly downgrades their status, and the only ones who win with that are your entitled males, because it forces women into the role of incubator and to some extent make them subservient to men taking care of them for sustenance (The patriarchy wet dream, males work and bring in the money and set the rules, while women are birth machines and housewives and are obedient).
The more women have the ability to choose, the less they are forced into roles, thus the more freedom they enjoy to have their path in life, thus causing their growing independency and thus causing the collapse of the Patriarchy model and by proxy the power of all the males out there who want women to be beneath them. And this is why Anti-Abortion is about being Anti-Woman rather than being Pro-life.
Let's remember something, being pro-choice doesn't mean FORCING abortions, it simply means giving an option, leave a door open so when the need comes, a woman IS able to make a choice and not be constrained into roles/duties, etc. for which she's not able to take care of or that only seek to degrade them. "But women shouldn't opened their legs" some may say and in fact this is first and foremost argument I hear from nearly all anti-abortion elders, but remember a baby is made up by two, so why are so willing to punish the woman first and not the man too? This is also cultural and is meant to ingrain the idea that women ought to be punished for "being sl*ts" (see how this is becoming more about anti-woman than defending lives?).
As an additional and closing line, let's look at mother nature a bit ok? Lions are said to raise only those that can climb back. Hedgehogs will eat their offspring if they feel like not having them. See where this is going? Even MOTHER NATURE okays abortion and not raising each and every single possible kid that can be born/brought to the world, because ultimately it IS impossible. Not every parent or potential parent can take care of all of them, not every parent or potential parent is WILLING to take care of all of them so forcing to give birth is simply the worst that can happen both for a mother that doesn't want to be a parent (and that's the worst kind of parent ever) and for a kid that will live in a dysfunctional, abandoned environment. And all of this could be handled SO well if stuff like Planned Parenthood that doesn't only provide abortions but also counsel, psychological aid, etc, etc. was more widespread and encouraged, but then you have Republicans wanting to break it apart and defund it (even tho market decided it IS good). You know already the reasons why they want to do that, might as well add that giving money out to such services is just anathema to conservatism in general, because less government is ALWAYS good.
And that's what I can tell you, I prolly didn't add all possible talking points or things to consider on this issue, but here you have a detailed explanation of why anti-abortion is anti-woman and the hypocrisy behind most "pro-lifers", make of that what you will.
I'm very glad to see your enthusiasm for the topic, I can tell that you actually care about the issue. I think that ensures a good dialogue and won't devolve into ad hominem as these issues tend to devolve into.
So, I'll address each of your key points to the best of my ability, but you've brought up some very valid things so I obviously can't produce responses designed as definitive answers, especially to this first one:
"By defending the fetus' right to live, you instantly trample over the woman's rights."
I find that this is technically true, which is why it's difficult to dispute. Once the woman is pregnant her body is of course involved in the conversation. This is especially true in cases where the woman's health is in danger. This is why, despite the unfortunateness of the situation, abortion is sometimes necessary. The woman's right to health and life does trump that of the infant's. However, beyond a life-threatening circumstance I think the right to life exceeds the right to avoid hardship. That's of course comes with its own set of exceptions, such as rape, incent, and such. But unconditional abortion isn't morally defensible, and although rare there are cases where women have many abortions, some actually enjoying or becoming
addicted to being pregnant/having an abortion. Excessive abortion is an abuse of medical procedures, reasonable limitations exist for other medical matters as well so it isn't something exclusive to abortion. I'm not sure it can be easily noticed but there's a link embedded into the word "addicted" up there.
"The woman status effectively becomes incubator."
Incubating =/= incubator. When performing my civic duty as a juror as per the law I am not reduced to a sub-human level, and neither would a woman carrying a child as per law be reduced to a sub-human level (at least granted the case is one in which the exceptions such as rape are excluded).
"As you said well too, perhaps the most troubling issue is finding consensus on when do we consider the fetus to be a living person, since biologically speaking it IS a parasite."
Yes, that does seem to be an issue of contention. I think it starts at conception but can see (despite disagreeing with it) the case for abortion up until viability. However, past that it's inarguably murder because the person no longer even technically requires the mother. It'd be like killing someone instead of evicting them from your property at that point.
Also, one correction--biologically speaking it is NOT a parasite. Not accusing you of this but you've obviously picked it up from others who are guilty of this; it's a tactic to reduce the human status of the baby when it's clearly not a parasite.
parasite
(păr′ə-sīt′)
n.
Biology An organism that lives and feeds on or in an organism of a different species and causes harm to its host.
-
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Parasite
"Say you force the women to have those children, then who takes care of them?"
That's ancillary to the issue. If abortion is indeed murder then it's a matter to solve consider afterward. We don't kill anyone else when we ask "who will take care of them," and nor should we. The elderly, disabled, or the institutionalized, often these people cannot take care of themselves and must be cared for. It's a social issue of its own and a completely separate topic. Of course, if abortion is not murder then this issue it pointless anyway.
"If the argument is that life is precious, must be protected and only God can take it away, then why not offer GENEROUS Cradle to Grave benefits to take care of that life?"
That would be ideal, but the reality currently is that we only do what we do, and while that should change, we can most certainly protect those who cannot protect themselves, the ones most vulnerable in our society whose positions we've all been in. Idealism is something I believe should guide us, so I don't disagree with your point.
"If women are given the ability to choose, that alone equates to female empowerment. Who loses with female empowerment? PATRIARCHY. That's it. This is WHY anti-abortion is anti-woman."
Female empowerment doesn't mean all-mighty female. The power of life and death is not something to be taken lightly, as mere choice. I think that term actually does a disservice to legitimate abortion. As a matter of necessity it is a proper choice, and not all choices are proper--such as when it is not a necessity. Who loses with that is the child, and often, the regretful, grief-stricken mother, far more than an already dismantled patriarchy. We should live in a meritocracy, it is true equality. Patriarchy was never good but nothing outside of meritocracy is good either, so of course it wasn't.
How do you tell women that they're anti-woman? Plenty of pro-life women exist.
"Remember a baby is made up by two, so why are so willing to punish the woman first and not the man too?"
If by punishment you mean restricting unnecessary abortions, then it's sort of impossible to punish a man in that way. However, I think that men who goad women into abortion should absolutely be punished. There are stories of boyfriends/husbands doing this and the women regretting it, and those men should absolutely face some sort of punishment for that. Families often essentially force young people into it as well, which for that a punishment is quite certainly merited as well.
"Even MOTHER NATURE okays abortion."
It also okays murder, rape, theft, and every other thing you don't want okayed. In fact, it not only okays these things, it actually encourages it. An animal which can simply kill another to steal its food and mate is doing quite well by nature's standards. Let's no go down that path.
"I prolly didn't add all possible talking points or things to consider on this issue, but here you have a detailed explanation of why anti-abortion is anti-woman and the hypocrisy behind most "pro-lifers""
You may not have added all possible talking points but you certainly touched on very many, some of which I agree with and where we can probably find common ground. You detailed it all very well, thank you for your effort, it is appreciated.
Two things regarding the abortion
1) The vast majority of scientists, embyologists, pediatricians, etc. conclude that the fetus does not have a developed enough nervous system to feel any sort of pain or have conscious thought, second opinions that go against this are extreme outliers and trusting them is akin to taking the word of contrarian scientists who deny the existence of climate change. Late term abortions are already unanimously illegal except for when the mothers life is threatened and is a boogyman brought up without context.
2) Even assuming the fetus can feel pain, people that argue this position can't or usually don't explain how the fetus is complex enough to interpret that pain in a way that would convince people of grave injustice. Does the fetus experience emotional suffering, fear, betrayal, does it ask "Why is this happening to me? How is the fetus experiencing pain different than an insect or a worm experiencing pain? Frankly, it isn't. It's simply afforded more rights and given the benefit of the doubt solely on the basis of having human DNA which is specieist logic, not based on any sort of sacred respect for life or desire to protect from harm.
This isn't to say I support the wanton slaughter of spiders or grasshoppers, simply that killing them isn't so much of a big deal in the minds of most people for the very reason that their extremely simple brains can't really process their (usually) instantaneous deaths in a way that's emotionally significant or profound. If you ever swat a fly, stepped on a spider, set out pesticides in your garden, etc. then in my opinion, you have no ground to stand on when you argue against abortion solely based on preventing pain.
So, the person arguing this has two options here. They can admit they are the sort of person who would never kill any living organism no matter how much of a nuisance it was (extremely doubtful and unlikely) or they can take the mask off and admit their argument is grounded is specieism, arguing that the mere possession of human DNA necessitates the existence of inalienable rights, which would be extremely difficult to argue.
I've never subscribed to the pain argument pro-lifers like to use. It's not a logical or moral matter, it's an appeal to emotion and nothing more. Certainly if the aborted babies feel pain that's terrible, but it isn't a determining factor in the issue so it's largely irrelevant, I believe. It doesn't matter whether someone feels pain or not, you can't kill them without proper cause, of which there are very few such as perhaps ending one's suffering when injured and sure to die regardless. With this in mind your two options don't make sense. Not killing people doesn't mean you must admit you would never kill any living organism, and possession of human DNA means what? We're talking about a developing person, they don't just "possess" human DNA. I find that to be a disingenuous characterization of the situation.
I don't even support the death penalty, so you can imagine how egregious killing babies is to someone like me.
You might want to use something to hold that mask on a little tighter because holy **** did it slip there, chief. Didn't know Doug TenNapel had an alt he was using to post about politics on a Pokemon forum.
You probably can't elaborate on how that's the case, which I presume is why you did not. Also, I'm not sure who this TenNapel fellow is and I'm afraid to even check, probably just a way to call me a Nazi or something.
Forgive any errors, I was quite tired when writing this lengthy chain of replies.
