2 ms·

Why isn't then the anti-abortion laws similar to laws for murder? Can you sue strangers for murdering some other strangers? I don't buy the "my point is that i

Why isn't then the anti-abortion laws similar to laws for murder? Can you sue strangers for murdering some other strangers? I don't buy the "my point is that it's murder"-arguments, as the behaviors from those people don't really align with that. Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering? My guess: Because it's mostly about control of others, right?

native_samples 5y ago
Isn't this whole thread about those people getting rid of an impediment to changing the laws (in some places) to make it be treated more like murder? You seem to be condemning the pro-life contingent for doing the very thing they're now being also condemned for.
pdonis 5y ago
> Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering? That kind of argument would not support the Roe and Casey viability standard for when states can ban abortions, since our current science and experience says that an abortion will cause suffering to the fetus well before viability. > Because it's mostly about control of others, right? A woman getting an abortion is controlling another: the fetus. She is determining the fate of that fetus without the fetus being able to defend itself. A big part of the problem with the "bodily autonomy" side of the abortion issue is that they only talk about the woman, never about the fetus. The hard truth is that once a woman is pregnant, it's no longer just about her. Any reasonable concept of personal responsibility will require the woman to take the fetus's interests into account and will not support a claim that a woman has a right to an abortion just because she has a right to "autonomy".
- matsemann 5y ago
  My point was really that if you want to reduce the amount of abortions, do stuff that actually helps: promote sexual education, support free and available contraceptive, support government programs that help families so that having a kid is less of a financial burden, support longer maternity leave. Etc etc etc. All stuff that will reduce abortions. Isn't that the goal? So why are mist people against abortion also against most of this stuff? And we all know that outlawing abortions doesn't stop them. It just makes them more dangerous and lead to more suffering for everyone involved. So what is really your goal here? Tell me.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > if you want to reduce the amount of abortions, do stuff that actually helps: promote sexual education, support free and available contraceptive, support government programs that help families so that having a kid is less of a financial burden, support longer maternity leave. Our society already does most of these things. One I would add is adoption. > All stuff that will reduce abortions. Isn't that the goal? I don't think reducing the number of abortions is the goal of many pro-abortion people, no. I think they just want a convenient way to not have to deal with a child they don't want by making it just go away. > why are mist people against abortion also against most of this stuff? Many people who are for abortion are also against much of this stuff. > we all know that outlawing abortions doesn't stop them. It just makes them more dangerous and lead to more suffering for everyone involved. This argument assumes that abortion is not inherently wrong. Many people who oppose abortion do believe that it is inherently wrong. If abortion is inherently wrong, it should not be legal even if some people will choose to do it knowing it is illegal, and having to do it by more dangerous means. If they choose to do it knowing it's illegal, that's their choice and they will have to bear the consequences. > what is really your goal here? As far as I my personal policy preference? I think the fact that there is such profound disagreement about whether abortion is wrong means that there should not be one single policy dictated to everyone. Different states should be able to have different policies.
    - matsemann 5y ago
      You managed to weasel out of most of my points, which doesn't make for very fruitful discussion. But I have one more thing to add: > This argument assumes that abortion is not inherently wrong. Many people who oppose abortion do believe that it is inherently wrong. No. If they believed it, they wouldn't themselves get an abortion when having a child would be bad. Soooo many stories of pro-lifers preaching one thing, and doing something else when they themselves face a situation wanting to abort. They are "excused" because of the circumstances, but when others have the same problems, they are "immoral" for getting into the situation. That's hypocritical, and shows it's more about imposing moral values onto others and controlling them, not a belief about it being inherently wrong.

native_samples 5y ago

Isn't this whole thread about those people getting rid of an impediment to changing the laws (in some places) to make it be treated more like murder? You seem to be condemning the pro-life contingent for doing the very thing they're now being also condemned for.

pdonis 5y ago

> Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering? That kind of argument would not support the Roe and Casey viability standard for when states can ban abortions, since our current science and experience says that an abortion will cause suffering to the fetus well before viability. > Because it's mostly about control of others, right? A woman getting an abortion is controlling another: the fetus. She is determining the fate of that fetus without the fetus being able to defend itself. A big part of the problem with the "bodily autonomy" side of the abortion issue is that they only talk about the woman, never about the fetus. The hard truth is that once a woman is pregnant, it's no longer just about her. Any reasonable concept of personal responsibility will require the woman to take the fetus's interests into account and will not support a claim that a woman has a right to an abortion just because she has a right to "autonomy".

matsemann 5y ago
My point was really that if you want to reduce the amount of abortions, do stuff that actually helps: promote sexual education, support free and available contraceptive, support government programs that help families so that having a kid is less of a financial burden, support longer maternity leave. Etc etc etc. All stuff that will reduce abortions. Isn't that the goal? So why are mist people against abortion also against most of this stuff? And we all know that outlawing abortions doesn't stop them. It just makes them more dangerous and lead to more suffering for everyone involved. So what is really your goal here? Tell me.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > if you want to reduce the amount of abortions, do stuff that actually helps: promote sexual education, support free and available contraceptive, support government programs that help families so that having a kid is less of a financial burden, support longer maternity leave. Our society already does most of these things. One I would add is adoption. > All stuff that will reduce abortions. Isn't that the goal? I don't think reducing the number of abortions is the goal of many pro-abortion people, no. I think they just want a convenient way to not have to deal with a child they don't want by making it just go away. > why are mist people against abortion also against most of this stuff? Many people who are for abortion are also against much of this stuff. > we all know that outlawing abortions doesn't stop them. It just makes them more dangerous and lead to more suffering for everyone involved. This argument assumes that abortion is not inherently wrong. Many people who oppose abortion do believe that it is inherently wrong. If abortion is inherently wrong, it should not be legal even if some people will choose to do it knowing it is illegal, and having to do it by more dangerous means. If they choose to do it knowing it's illegal, that's their choice and they will have to bear the consequences. > what is really your goal here? As far as I my personal policy preference? I think the fact that there is such profound disagreement about whether abortion is wrong means that there should not be one single policy dictated to everyone. Different states should be able to have different policies.
  - matsemann 5y ago
    You managed to weasel out of most of my points, which doesn't make for very fruitful discussion. But I have one more thing to add: > This argument assumes that abortion is not inherently wrong. Many people who oppose abortion do believe that it is inherently wrong. No. If they believed it, they wouldn't themselves get an abortion when having a child would be bad. Soooo many stories of pro-lifers preaching one thing, and doing something else when they themselves face a situation wanting to abort. They are "excused" because of the circumstances, but when others have the same problems, they are "immoral" for getting into the situation. That's hypocritical, and shows it's more about imposing moral values onto others and controlling them, not a belief about it being inherently wrong.