3 ms·

You are right, I was getting angry, and being unreasonable. But while claiming my representation of pro-lifers is unreasonably broad, you repeat a bunch of the

by olliej 4y ago

You are right, I was getting angry, and being unreasonable. But while claiming my representation of pro-lifers is unreasonably broad, you repeat a bunch of the standard claims. You make the common claim that laws preventing people from doing things to others without their consent are no different from laws preventing a person from receiving medical treatment of their own body. > "Banning abortions can be effective at lowering abortions as well." It does reduce the number of abortions a small amount, and it also increases the number of women who die during them, when they get them anyway. What actually reduces abortions is reducing pregnancy in the first place. Something that has been repeatedly shown is achieved through provision of birth control, and actual sex education. Doing that results in a much greater reduction in abortions, and doesn't come at the cost of killing women. "At least it gives rights to her baby." I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here? No one has removed anyone's rights to their baby - again, the only right being removed here is a woman's bodily autonomy. In fact, by forcing women to carry unsafe pregnancies to term you may end up forcing them into sterility. So not only did you remove their right to abortion, you remove their ability to have children later. The arguments you are making take the color of "pro-choicers want abortions", which is a standard lie promoted by pro-lifers. The states that are electively pro-choice are also the states that provide contraception, birth control, some semblance of sex ed - things that actually reduce abortions. I do not understand why you think I have not tried to understand. I understand your position very clearly. It is not complex. You believe abortion is wrong, and therefore you believe that it doesn't matter what a woman may believe, that they should not have bodily autonomy. Currently this is limited to abortion, but given you believe that women do not have any constitutional right to bodily autonomy, there is no reason you cannot decide that woman should lose other rights in future. I am not being facetious, and I am not being hysterical. Numerous governments, left and right wing, liberal and conservative, have at numerous points in history determined that women should be involuntarily sterilized (which I guess stops abortions, so yay?) for a variety of reasons - that were mentally ill, gay, non-white, ... See, the problem is that once you say someone does not have bodily autonomy, then you have stated that the government has permission to control those victim's bodies. It's not "just one thing", the debate about abortion is the debate over whether a woman gets a say in what happens to her body. The pro-life position is that women do not.

_-david-_ 4y ago
>You make the common claim that laws preventing people from doing things to others without their consent are no different from laws preventing a person from receiving medical treatment of their own body. Well there is a second body during abortions as well. The fetus has a body. Unless you think a woman grows an extra 2 arms and legs. A woman also has 2 hearts and 2 sets of gentials? >It does reduce the number of abortions a small amount, and it also increases the number of women who die during them, when they get them anyway. I think protecting the most innocent and vulnerable amongst us is more important than a person who will take a dangerous action. It isn't an ideal situation but you have to choose one to protect. At least artificial wombs are starting to be a thing and may prevent this issue in the future. >What actually reduces abortions is reducing pregnancy in the first place. Something that has been repeatedly shown is achieved through provision of birth control, and actual sex education. Doing that results in a much greater reduction in abortions, and doesn't come at the cost of killing women. In terms of birth control, some (not sure the percentage) are abortive. They allow conception but prevent the implantation. This is on reason why some are opposed to some birth control. Like I said in my previous post, we live in a two party system. We don't live in a system where you can vote for additional things like this and restricting abortion. You can't just say prolifers don't vote for these things because there is no other choice for them. >I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here? No one has removed anyone's rights to their baby - again, the only right being removed here is a woman's bodily autonomy. I believe if you are not granted protection from being killed than any other right is secondary. You can't exercise any other right if you are dead. When 99% of abortions are not due to rape it is hard to justify removing another person's (the baby's) rights when the other person (the mother) consented to an action whose sole biological purpose is procreation. >In fact, by forcing women to carry unsafe pregnancies to term you may end up forcing them into sterility. So not only did you remove their right to abortion, you remove their ability to have children later. Abortions can also lead to sterilization as well. >The arguments you are making take the color of "pro-choicers want abortions", which is a standard lie promoted by pro-lifers. The states that are electively pro-choice are also the states that provide contraception, birth control, some semblance of sex ed - things that actually reduce abortions. Like I said, prolifers have no option to vote for someone who will restrict abortion while expanding the other things. >I do not understand why you think I have not tried to understand. I understand your position very clearly. It is not complex. You refuse to understand that a fetus is another person that has rights and just say prolifers only want to control woman. It sure sounds like you don't understand. >You believe abortion is wrong, and therefore you believe that it doesn't matter what a woman may believe, that they should not have bodily autonomy. I believe a woman has full autonomy over her body, just not the foetus' body. >Currently this is limited to abortion, but given you believe that women do not have any constitutional right to bodily autonomy, there is no reason you cannot decide that woman should lose other rights in future. And you wonder why I say you don't understand the other side. >I am not being facetious, and I am not being hysterical. Debatable. >Numerous governments, left and right wing, liberal and conservative, have at numerous points in history determined that women should be involuntarily sterilized (which I guess stops abortions, so yay?) for a variety of reasons - that were mentally ill, gay, non-white, ... In the US, which we are talking about, this was almost entirely on the left. Eugenics was quite a popular fad with progressives. Regardless, I think pretty much everyone now is opposed to forced sterilization. Some places have forced abortions. It isn't relevant to the discussion. >See, the problem is that once you say someone does not have bodily autonomy, then you have stated that the government has permission to control those victim's bodies. >It's not "just one thing", the debate about abortion is the debate over whether a woman gets a say in what happens to her body. I fully agree. That is why I believe babies should have equal rights. What is stopping a government from removing rights from infants, toddlers or even adults if you can remove rights from babies? This hill we are on sure seems slippery. >The pro-life position is that women do not. The prochoice position is that babies do not have rights.

by olliej 4y ago

_-david-_ 4y ago

>You make the common claim that laws preventing people from doing things to others without their consent are no different from laws preventing a person from receiving medical treatment of their own body. Well there is a second body during abortions as well. The fetus has a body. Unless you think a woman grows an extra 2 arms and legs. A woman also has 2 hearts and 2 sets of gentials? >It does reduce the number of abortions a small amount, and it also increases the number of women who die during them, when they get them anyway. I think protecting the most innocent and vulnerable amongst us is more important than a person who will take a dangerous action. It isn't an ideal situation but you have to choose one to protect. At least artificial wombs are starting to be a thing and may prevent this issue in the future. >What actually reduces abortions is reducing pregnancy in the first place. Something that has been repeatedly shown is achieved through provision of birth control, and actual sex education. Doing that results in a much greater reduction in abortions, and doesn't come at the cost of killing women. In terms of birth control, some (not sure the percentage) are abortive. They allow conception but prevent the implantation. This is on reason why some are opposed to some birth control. Like I said in my previous post, we live in a two party system. We don't live in a system where you can vote for additional things like this and restricting abortion. You can't just say prolifers don't vote for these things because there is no other choice for them. >I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here? No one has removed anyone's rights to their baby - again, the only right being removed here is a woman's bodily autonomy. I believe if you are not granted protection from being killed than any other right is secondary. You can't exercise any other right if you are dead. When 99% of abortions are not due to rape it is hard to justify removing another person's (the baby's) rights when the other person (the mother) consented to an action whose sole biological purpose is procreation. >In fact, by forcing women to carry unsafe pregnancies to term you may end up forcing them into sterility. So not only did you remove their right to abortion, you remove their ability to have children later. Abortions can also lead to sterilization as well. >The arguments you are making take the color of "pro-choicers want abortions", which is a standard lie promoted by pro-lifers. The states that are electively pro-choice are also the states that provide contraception, birth control, some semblance of sex ed - things that actually reduce abortions. Like I said, prolifers have no option to vote for someone who will restrict abortion while expanding the other things. >I do not understand why you think I have not tried to understand. I understand your position very clearly. It is not complex. You refuse to understand that a fetus is another person that has rights and just say prolifers only want to control woman. It sure sounds like you don't understand. >You believe abortion is wrong, and therefore you believe that it doesn't matter what a woman may believe, that they should not have bodily autonomy. I believe a woman has full autonomy over her body, just not the foetus' body. >Currently this is limited to abortion, but given you believe that women do not have any constitutional right to bodily autonomy, there is no reason you cannot decide that woman should lose other rights in future. And you wonder why I say you don't understand the other side. >I am not being facetious, and I am not being hysterical. Debatable. >Numerous governments, left and right wing, liberal and conservative, have at numerous points in history determined that women should be involuntarily sterilized (which I guess stops abortions, so yay?) for a variety of reasons - that were mentally ill, gay, non-white, ... In the US, which we are talking about, this was almost entirely on the left. Eugenics was quite a popular fad with progressives. Regardless, I think pretty much everyone now is opposed to forced sterilization. Some places have forced abortions. It isn't relevant to the discussion. >See, the problem is that once you say someone does not have bodily autonomy, then you have stated that the government has permission to control those victim's bodies. >It's not "just one thing", the debate about abortion is the debate over whether a woman gets a say in what happens to her body. I fully agree. That is why I believe babies should have equal rights. What is stopping a government from removing rights from infants, toddlers or even adults if you can remove rights from babies? This hill we are on sure seems slippery. >The pro-life position is that women do not. The prochoice position is that babies do not have rights.