8 ms·

> view it as literally murdering a child Except they obviously don't, actually, or they wouldn't so regularly permit abortion in the case of rape or incest, no

> view it as literally murdering a child Except they obviously don't, actually, or they wouldn't so regularly permit abortion in the case of rape or incest, nor would fertilization-preventing birth control be so often mislabeled as 'abortifacents'. Preserving life may be the stated goal, but if you look at the actual actions taken, it's obvious that it's actually about controlling sexuality.

aaomidi 5y ago
And it's a minority of the country that cares. And they only give a shit because media has effectively manufactured outrage. Fox News, CNN, msnbc, all have one goal and it's to push discussions from a class war (loaded term, I know) to a culture war.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  51.1% of the United States (women) have a direct and personal stake in this issue. They care, although many don't think about it until it's actually their immediate problem, and then it might be too late. As a male, I also care because the issue directly impacts people in my life that I care about. The pro-life side of the aisle is directly and viciously assaulting their bodily sovereignty and potentially their health and life. The pro-lifers might be fighting for some nebulous "unborn" who they will likely never know and never have any real obligation to, but I'm fighting for my partner, my daughters, my sisters, my friends. And I'll be damned before I let some disgusting religious extremists create a system that enslaves them.
  - zionic 5y ago
    The “this is a womens issue” argument is invalid on its face. Everyone is born, and this everyone is impacted by the right to kill the unborn. Every human being has a stake in this.
    - anonporridge 5y ago
      No one has the right to continue living by parasitically sucking off another person without their consent. You and I only get to be here debating because our mothers chose to give that gift to us. It is not within our rights to force others to do the same for their own fetuses.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >No one has the right to continue living by parasitically sucking off another person without their consent. This clearly does not hold up for children after birth. I can't deposit my infant in the desert and withdraw my consent to provide for it. This would be murder.
        anonporridge 5y ago
        Infanticide has been and still is an incredibly common and accepted practice in human society, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide. It is only in the privilege of modern society where we have such an abundance of resources that we have collectively consented to allocate a percentage of our commonwealth to the care of unwanted infants and children through orphanages and foster care, that we can treat infanticide as barbaric murder. You can sever your responsibility to you child by surrendering them to the state, so severing your responsibility by leaving them to die of exposure is indeed unnecessary and barbaric. I personally believe that in the future, when we develop artificial wombs, we may revisit the question of abortion and require that women "abort" by having the fetus extracted alive and transplanted into an artificial womb. Preemie care is effectively the state of the art for "artificial wombs" and the current record survival is 21 weeks of age, which is just shy of the third trimester. This would also then require us to collectively allocate money and resources to caring for and raising these unwanted infants in an expensive medical setting. However, I suspect we'll develop near perfect, side effect free, and reversible birth control before this happens, so the issue of abortion may mostly resolve itself on its own. That is, unless the religious extremists get their way and ban birth control too, which the current leaked court decision seems like it's paving the way for.
zionic 5y ago
I don’t support abortion in the case of rape or incest, under the concern that it will simply be a check box that gets ticked to allow all abortion. From an ethical standpoint, the unborn child has a right to life that is not invalidated by the means or character of their parents. Unless of course you’re arguing from a eugenics point of view, but I doubt that’s the angle you’re coming from. The two major exceptions I see are: 1) medical experts determine the life of the mother is in danger, such that the child will kill the mother. 2) scientific, repeatable evidence shows the fetus is non viable
- maxerickson 5y ago
  If a method to transfer those pregnancies existed, would your ethics require you to continuously accept them?
- sauwan 5y ago
  >From an ethical standpoint, the unborn child has a right to life that is not invalidated by the means or character of their parents. Why would this situation differ from requiring people donate kidneys or a living liver donation when another humans life is at stake? Why don't I have a right to your kidney if you can go on living just fine after the procedure?
  - JohnTHaller 5y ago
    It's deeper than that. The courts have ruled that others can't have your organs to survive even if you're dead. Hence why we have thousands dying every year on waiting lists and tons of useful organs, blood, and tissue being incinerated and buried.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      So what you're saying is that per the leaked opinion, a dead woman has more rights than a living one?
  - meragrin_ 5y ago
    The situation is more like someone who has donated their organ demanding it back. The donation has already occurred. The recipient is already dependent on the donation. The donor is demanding a reversal. Do you think a donor has the right to their organ back after it has been donated?
SaintGhurka 5y ago
>Except they obviously don't, actually, or they wouldn't so regularly permit abortion in the case of rape or incest That just seems like pragmatism. An unqualified ban would be voted down or struck down by a court. They might just be crafting legislation they feel they can pass.
redstatethrway 5y ago
> Except they obviously don't, actually ... regularly permit abortion in the case of rape Have you actually talked to anyone on the other side of this issue? Most are consistent on not allowing it- even when the rapist is a skin color you think they hate.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  Polling suggests you might be living in an echo chamber. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americans-views-on-whether-and-in-what-circumstances-abortion-should-be-legal/pf_05-06-22_abortion-views_1_10/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americans-vi... Even among the most extremist group, white evangelicals, a larger percentage favor legal abortion in the case of rape than a blanket ban. But as someone who was myself raised in these extremist groups, I fully echo your perception that most vocal pro-lifers wouldn't be willing to carve out a rape exception. But this does seem to be a case of the screaming minority drowning out the silent majority.
  - redstatethrway 5y ago
    Did you read your own link? It supports my claim that a majority of the people on the other side of the issue (white evangelicals, who are btw the majority sect in America) oppose abortion in all cases.
    - anonporridge 5y ago
      What do you mean? The link I provided clearly shows that of white Evangelicals when asked specifically about the question of abortion in cases of rape, 40% said it should be legal, 34% said it should be illegal, and 24% said it depends. Are you referring to something else? Also, white Evangelicals are VERY far from the majority, which means over 50%. They are at best the purality, with evangelical protestants of all races making up 25% of the US population. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu... In fact, it looks like religious "nones" are growing so fast that the previous link is already out of date and they have already surpassed evangelicals to become the largest "religious" category (when you break down the larger Christian category). https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/12/14/about-three-in-ten-u-s-adults-are-now-religiously-unaffiliated/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/12/14/about-three-...

aaomidi 5y ago

And it's a minority of the country that cares. And they only give a shit because media has effectively manufactured outrage. Fox News, CNN, msnbc, all have one goal and it's to push discussions from a class war (loaded term, I know) to a culture war.

anonporridge 5y ago
51.1% of the United States (women) have a direct and personal stake in this issue. They care, although many don't think about it until it's actually their immediate problem, and then it might be too late. As a male, I also care because the issue directly impacts people in my life that I care about. The pro-life side of the aisle is directly and viciously assaulting their bodily sovereignty and potentially their health and life. The pro-lifers might be fighting for some nebulous "unborn" who they will likely never know and never have any real obligation to, but I'm fighting for my partner, my daughters, my sisters, my friends. And I'll be damned before I let some disgusting religious extremists create a system that enslaves them.
- zionic 5y ago
  The “this is a womens issue” argument is invalid on its face. Everyone is born, and this everyone is impacted by the right to kill the unborn. Every human being has a stake in this.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    No one has the right to continue living by parasitically sucking off another person without their consent. You and I only get to be here debating because our mothers chose to give that gift to us. It is not within our rights to force others to do the same for their own fetuses.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      >No one has the right to continue living by parasitically sucking off another person without their consent. This clearly does not hold up for children after birth. I can't deposit my infant in the desert and withdraw my consent to provide for it. This would be murder.
      - anonporridge 5y ago
        Infanticide has been and still is an incredibly common and accepted practice in human society, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide. It is only in the privilege of modern society where we have such an abundance of resources that we have collectively consented to allocate a percentage of our commonwealth to the care of unwanted infants and children through orphanages and foster care, that we can treat infanticide as barbaric murder. You can sever your responsibility to you child by surrendering them to the state, so severing your responsibility by leaving them to die of exposure is indeed unnecessary and barbaric. I personally believe that in the future, when we develop artificial wombs, we may revisit the question of abortion and require that women "abort" by having the fetus extracted alive and transplanted into an artificial womb. Preemie care is effectively the state of the art for "artificial wombs" and the current record survival is 21 weeks of age, which is just shy of the third trimester. This would also then require us to collectively allocate money and resources to caring for and raising these unwanted infants in an expensive medical setting. However, I suspect we'll develop near perfect, side effect free, and reversible birth control before this happens, so the issue of abortion may mostly resolve itself on its own. That is, unless the religious extremists get their way and ban birth control too, which the current leaked court decision seems like it's paving the way for.

zionic 5y ago

I don’t support abortion in the case of rape or incest, under the concern that it will simply be a check box that gets ticked to allow all abortion. From an ethical standpoint, the unborn child has a right to life that is not invalidated by the means or character of their parents. Unless of course you’re arguing from a eugenics point of view, but I doubt that’s the angle you’re coming from. The two major exceptions I see are: 1) medical experts determine the life of the mother is in danger, such that the child will kill the mother. 2) scientific, repeatable evidence shows the fetus is non viable

maxerickson 5y ago
If a method to transfer those pregnancies existed, would your ethics require you to continuously accept them?
sauwan 5y ago
>From an ethical standpoint, the unborn child has a right to life that is not invalidated by the means or character of their parents. Why would this situation differ from requiring people donate kidneys or a living liver donation when another humans life is at stake? Why don't I have a right to your kidney if you can go on living just fine after the procedure?
- JohnTHaller 5y ago
  It's deeper than that. The courts have ruled that others can't have your organs to survive even if you're dead. Hence why we have thousands dying every year on waiting lists and tons of useful organs, blood, and tissue being incinerated and buried.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    So what you're saying is that per the leaked opinion, a dead woman has more rights than a living one?
- meragrin_ 5y ago
  The situation is more like someone who has donated their organ demanding it back. The donation has already occurred. The recipient is already dependent on the donation. The donor is demanding a reversal. Do you think a donor has the right to their organ back after it has been donated?

SaintGhurka 5y ago

>Except they obviously don't, actually, or they wouldn't so regularly permit abortion in the case of rape or incest That just seems like pragmatism. An unqualified ban would be voted down or struck down by a court. They might just be crafting legislation they feel they can pass.

redstatethrway 5y ago

> Except they obviously don't, actually ... regularly permit abortion in the case of rape Have you actually talked to anyone on the other side of this issue? Most are consistent on not allowing it- even when the rapist is a skin color you think they hate.

anonporridge 5y ago
Polling suggests you might be living in an echo chamber. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americans-views-on-whether-and-in-what-circumstances-abortion-should-be-legal/pf_05-06-22_abortion-views_1_10/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americans-vi... Even among the most extremist group, white evangelicals, a larger percentage favor legal abortion in the case of rape than a blanket ban. But as someone who was myself raised in these extremist groups, I fully echo your perception that most vocal pro-lifers wouldn't be willing to carve out a rape exception. But this does seem to be a case of the screaming minority drowning out the silent majority.
- redstatethrway 5y ago
  Did you read your own link? It supports my claim that a majority of the people on the other side of the issue (white evangelicals, who are btw the majority sect in America) oppose abortion in all cases.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    What do you mean? The link I provided clearly shows that of white Evangelicals when asked specifically about the question of abortion in cases of rape, 40% said it should be legal, 34% said it should be illegal, and 24% said it depends. Are you referring to something else? Also, white Evangelicals are VERY far from the majority, which means over 50%. They are at best the purality, with evangelical protestants of all races making up 25% of the US population. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu... In fact, it looks like religious "nones" are growing so fast that the previous link is already out of date and they have already surpassed evangelicals to become the largest "religious" category (when you break down the larger Christian category). https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/12/14/about-three-in-ten-u-s-adults-are-now-religiously-unaffiliated/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/12/14/about-three-...