12 ms·

A former girlfriend of mine went to what she thought was a clinic, and was effectively scared out of having one, and had twins at 18. These scummy tactics work

by bbarn 4y ago

A former girlfriend of mine went to what she thought was a clinic, and was effectively scared out of having one, and had twins at 18. These scummy tactics work, or people wouldn't do them.

clarge1120 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
luxuryballs 4y ago
- lukas099 4y ago
  > I can’t imagine anything LESS scummy than helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very glad they were born By the same token, wouldn't it be unethical to not have as many kids as possible all the time? After all, those kids will be glad that they were born.
  - malfist 4y ago
    Let's take it a step further. Shouldn't women be broodmares for the state, producing as many children as possible since all those kids will be glad that they were born. Their sacrifice during their childbearing years is worth it for the utilitarian benefit of more happy children. This is obviously not a serious suggestion, just calling into question the right of unborn children to have claims of an adult (or sometimes non-adult) woman.
  - Grustaf 4y ago
    Not conceiving children is clearly not the same as killing them after conception. That said, there are plenty of people that would agree with the idea that we should have as many babies as we can. Utilitarians for example, and many traditional Christians.
    - malfist 4y ago
      > Not conceiving children is clearly not the same as killing them after conception. I don't think anyone is advocating killing children. Aborting a fetus, sure, but a fetus isn't a child any more than an acorn is an oak tree.
      - Grustaf 4y ago
        Ah you got me. If we call it a foetus then killing it clearly has no moral implications. Naming makes all the difference.
        malfist 4y ago
        Riddle me this, is making flour from acorns murdering oak trees? Are you murdering potato plants when you eat french fries? Does munching on peanuts make you peanut hitler? If I have caviar, am I responsible for the murder of thousands of fish?
        Grustaf 4y ago
        Almost no acorns would have turned into trees, so the comparison falls down. If we look at saplings, we'd be closer, and obviously killing a sapling is more or less equivalent to killing an oak tree. We don't tend to talk about "murder" when it comes to plants. Peanuts and caviar are the same, or even more silly. Only with potatoes does the question make sense, and clearly the answer is yes, potato plants die when you harvest them. But almost nobody thinks that is an issue, since they are not even sentient.
        malfist 4y ago
        So what you're saying is, only things that are born matter if you kill them? In that case, you shouldn't have an issue with a fetus being aborted. Also, that's now how potatoes work. You harvest them after the plant has died. At least for potatoes used for french fries.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    There is a difference between a conceived person and an unconceived one. We assume an unborn person would prefer to be born than killed. An unconceived person doesn't exist at all, so there is no moral/ethical issue in not conceiving them. The exception maybe is biology, but there is still an upper limit to personal resources which one wouldn't want to exhaust due to the impact on their other (if any) children 's quality of life.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      > We assume an unborn person would prefer to be born than killed. A clump of cells doesn't have enough coherence to have a preference. In fact, babies don't have the kind of brain development necessary to comprehend this question, let alone form a preference until years after being born.
      - hellojesus 4y ago
        Of course, but obviously when left to nature, that newly created clump of cells, which is a new person in a primitive state, will eventually gain cognition and develop preferences. Your argument seems to suggest that a comatose person would have the same entitlement to life and an unborn person.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- CoffeeOnWrite 4y ago
  The comment you’re replying to describes a bait and switch “counseling clinic”. Cf. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/pregnancy-clinics-bait-and-switch/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/pregnancy-clinics-... The moderate pro-life crowd should see this behavior as scummy and denounce it, as it taints their cause. IE take the high road to attaining their goals. Those in support of this behavior, have more deep ethical challenges, and I sincerely hope and believe are not the majority of pro-life voters.. (Using “pro-life” reluctantly here, to avoid distractions) Edit to add: my intent by this comment is to depolarize. It’s frustrating to see child comments from the pro-choice side that don’t take my hint :/ Let’s not engage with the extreme on either side folks, if we want to better understand the opposing points of view. Yes, the loudest voices are often the most extreme, and no the moderates don’t denounce (on both sides!), but we can try to do better on our beloved HN.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > The moderate pro-life crowd should see this behavior as scummy and denounce it, as it taints their cause. IE take the high road to attaining their goals. Why? To someone who thinks abortion is the murder of babies, what you advocate is priority inversion error. Your idea is a lot like saying the police in Uvalde shouldn't have gone in and (eventually) shot the school shooter, rather they should have "take[n] the high road to attaining their goals" and just talked to him until he stopped of his own accord.
    - CoffeeOnWrite 4y ago
      Police are peace officers with sworn duty bestowed lawfully and transparently by the state and supported by agreed upon best practices. I see no ethical qualms with courageously taking out the shooter. Private citizens conspiring to trick other private citizens, is not in the same ballpark or league.
    - esyir 4y ago
      Except that (virtually) nobody on the right truly believes that it's full fledged baby murder. They believe it's bad, but clearly, from their response, it's not anywhere near as bad as that. If your government/heathcare/someOtherOrg was grinding up babies post birth at scale, or any equivalent, I'd expect the response to be more riots and bombs, and less "Let's campaign for fifty odd years to get the capability to ban it in a number of states". Edit: Response to "of course they do": I strongly disbelieve that, simply because of their response There were ~600k abortions in 2021. If the right truly believed in their hearts that an abortion is directly equal to a murder, they'd basically be giving a pathetic response to what would be an absolutely "Final Solution" level crime. Estimates of the Jewish death toll were ~6 million and was responded to by full fledged, hot war. If their response to a holocaust every 10 years was "we'll slowly eke forward over 50Y, and manage to get bans in just half the country", that's a hell of a pathetic response.
- kevinfiol 4y ago
  Maybe we have a different idea of what "scummy" means, but I find using a bait-and-switch tactic to emotionally manipulate a teenager into birthing twins that they likely do not have the resources to raise (let alone the maturity) to be "scummy".
- antifa 4y ago
  > who are now likely very glad they were born Have you talked to young people? Stats and meme culture strongly suggest the opposite, and it's for economic reasons and reasons like loss of personal freedoms such as "women's bodily autonomy".
  - spoils19 4y ago
    Personal freedoms that have no historical basis in the Constitution*.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  > because it seems impossible to understand the “the other side” As nicely exemplified by your post where you assume everybody should agree with your opinions on the matter > at least understand even if I disagree Oh we understand. It's because you can't tolerate other views as yourself (even within Christianism) The Taliban shares the same tolerance you display against different religious views
- Workaccount2 4y ago
  No one has ever been sad that they weren't born. "How would you feel if you weren't born?" is a nonsensical question.
  - jonhohle 4y ago
    You do realize you can feel before you are born, right? Verbal communication and feeling are not the same. It is well established that newborns remember the sounds they heard prior to birth.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - falcolas 4y ago
      Which has nothing to do with wanting to be born. Feelings aren't understanding. Answering "did I want to be born" requires thought processes newborns aren't even capable of.
  - luxuryballs 4y ago
    Yeah but you can be glad that you’re alive and find your life to be an experience you’re glad you’re having.
- Runways 4y ago
  Because tons of children will be born to parents that do not want them. They are not guaranteed to be adopted, and could be tossed into a foster system that is rife with physical and sexual abuse. There are many paths here that can lead to destitution, homelessness, lack of education, lack of compassion, lack of guidance, and exploitation. Once the baby is born, the people who forced that baby to be born no longer care about them. They are no longer a political pawn. In fact, they will continue to attack the social safety nets and programs that they could end up relying on to survive. Safe sex education so that this child doesn't have a baby? NO! That goes against the Bible. This is advantageous sometimes to the Christian nationalist cause, as they may be adopted by large fundamentalist families or lured towards religious charities that ARE subsidized through the state. Sounds crazy, but you should hear how some of these extremists talk. It's borderline child trafficking. It's funny you mention cutting up your insides. That's propaganda. Most abortions are done with pills, up to more than 12 months. What happens? It comes out as a heavy flow. That's it. Most people don't wait until they have an noticeable baby-bump to have an abortion. Most propaganda about the operation is dishonest, exaggerated, and straight up propaganda. Another fun fact is that these abortion laws are extremely draconian. Some have no exceptions for rape and/or incest. Meaning that rapists will and have been given parental visitation rights. Children victims can even be forced into this situation, disgusting. Had a miscarriage? That can now be investigated as a crime. Police can now get your messages, location data, search history, hard drives, and search your house. This is theocratic insanity, in America. Feels like Iran. Christians don't always behave this badly in other countries, but in America we've *really* sipped on the GOP/Christian propaganda Koolaid and we look like absolute clowns.
- welshwelsh 4y ago
  It's not killing someone. A fetus isn't a person. > I can’t imagine anything LESS scummy than helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very glad they were born So would it be ethical to rape someone and force them to give birth? Because the babies would be happy to be born and experiencing life? That's the same logic you're using. A fetus isn't a person. It's not sentient. It doesn't have hopes and dreams. Personally, I feel guiltier eating pork than having an abortion. Because unlike a fetus, pigs are highly intelligent, social and emotional beings. On the other hand, a woman is a person. She has the right to control her own body and her own life. If she doesn't want children, she should not be forced to have children. Even if she has sex! Yes, I know that's radical, but I believe that women should be able to have as much sex as they want, with whoever they want, even outside of marriage, without being punished with unwanted children. I know, and I'm sure you know, that's the real issue. Lots of people are uncomfortable with the concept of consequence-free sex. Christianity, the largest religion in the western world, teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong. That's why so many people who are against abortion "just happen" to be socially conservative. That's why they "just happen" to be against LGBT as well even though that has fuck-all to do with 'saving babies.' That's why they oppose comprehensive sex education and birth control access, even though that's the most obvious way to reduce unplanned pregnancies.
  - snikeris 4y ago
    > I know, and I'm sure you know, that's the real issue. Lots of people are uncomfortable with the concept of consequence-free sex. Hard disagree that the abortion issue is primarily about consequence-free sex. You stated the issue in the first line: > A fetus isn't a person. Pro-life people vehemently disagree about this, and it's not coming from a place of prudishness. They are outraged because they feel like babies are being killed. > It's not killing someone. A fetus isn't a person. Isn't a fetus kind of like a tadpole? Sure, we may quibble that it isn't a person, but it is still a living being on the way to maturity. Killing a tadpole is killing _something_, right?
    - mojzu 4y ago
      Often the same groups opposing abortion also oppose the most effective policies to reduce abortions (proper sex ed, free birth control and family planning services, etc.). So while I agree there is an impasse on where the human life line is drawn, I would say it's fair to argue that prudishness/puritanical beliefs are a large factor in the opposition to legal abortion
- tedajax 4y ago
- em-bee 4y ago
  what exactly are you trying to understand? how someone can feel not able to raise a child? how about trying to understand why this person feels not able, and what needs to change so that they will feel able? i don't see anyone working towards a society where people are actually supported to raise their children. people are promised help, but when the baby is there, no help is actually forthcoming. to help save lives, we need to work on our society to be helpful and welcoming to the children when they are actually born, and not just feel good about convincing someone to not have an abortion, with complete disregard for what comes afterwards.
- rguiliani 4y ago
- inetknght 4y ago
  > helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very glad they were born I have met many people who hated their lives for many reasons. What makes you think these children won't? Some of the reasons include: - parents didn't want the children - children grew up poor - children grew up with disabilities - children were put up for adoption - the world is becoming uninhabitable for the children's children I can't imagine how someone could feel good about birthing a baby without also giving all of the necessary safeties. And that's just looking at the children's perspective. What about the parents'? Can you imagine having been raped, then being forced to carry an unwanted child to term, and then also being forced to pay child support to the rapist? Can you imagine wanting a child but then discovering that the child will be stillborn or worse: born with debilitating defects that you aren't capable of dealing with? If you want children then go have children. If you don't want children... then why should you be forced to? > my default is that you really shouldn’t be killing your offspring or cutting up your insides unless you are removing something like cancer or shrapnel. Indeed! Sometimes the baby is literally dying for reasons outside of your control. But without Roe v Wade then we cannot legally abort. A dying fetus can cause sepsis and death to the mother. That's certainly "something like cancer or shrapnel" in my book. I had a lot of head-burying opinions too until I had a long and deep conversation with a female friend about politics. She had the patience to listen to what I had to say with the knowledge and experience necessary to provide alternate views. I suggest that you ask the women around you what they think. Don't stop at one or two. Really listen to them. Listen to their perspectives and their opinions. Try to put yourself in their shoes. You will find that their perspectives and opinions differ from yours. You might even find that they enjoy things that you think should be sacred. You're not wrong and neither are they. But what is wrong is to force your morals and opinions onto them.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    The overturning of R v W left substantive due process in tact, so there is still room for abortions when the unborn child threatens the life or serious health (blindness, etc.) of the mother.
  - noworriesnate 4y ago
    What if instead of presuming whether the children will hate their lives, we let them grow up to a certain age, say age 9, and then ask them if they hate their lives? If they say yes, kill them, if they say no, let them live. There is no moral difference between this solution and abortion if the fetus is a baby. If the fetus is not a baby then there is a moral difference though, so... I guess the real question is whether or not the fetus is a baby. My point is, any open-minded debate about abortion will always return to this question. As long as pro-abortion people ignore this question, they are talking past the pro-lifers and will never understand us.
- ako 4y ago
  If you want those children to be born, you could also vote for better child/parent support. Ensure those women that are pregnant have confidence that they can carry the responsibility of raising these children for 18 years. Ensure good affordable healthcare is provided for those that can't afford it, ensure good affordable education is provided, ensure good affordable childcare is provided for. Try helping instead of forbidding. And accept some children should not be born due to health, abuse, rape, etc.
- asoneth 4y ago
  I respect your question and have the same question from the reverse side. I similarly have difficulty understanding how Christians who follow a doctrine that appears to be so kind can behave in ways that seem so cruel and heartless to the rest of us. I suspect it is down to unbridgeable axiomatic differences. You see a fertilized egg as a human with rights, I see it as a cell with interesting potential, not particularly more deserving of rights than any other cell with potential. Even if I accepted that a fertilized egg has human rights, I don't understand why those rights outweigh the autonomy of the donor/host. What if I told you that your blood, bone marrow, kidney, or even lung could save another human's life at relatively minimal risk to your survival? (It's true, and I recommend everyone reading this be an organ donor and sign up for bethematch.com) But should the state be allowed to legally compel you to undertake these risks to save another human life? Judging the stories of pro-life advocates who get abortions while convincing themselves that "their situation is different" my assumption is that there is a basic lack of human empathy. I've found that this squares with the fact that many people oppose benefits and rights for others but then begin to support them when it personally impacts them.
the_only_law 4y ago
I have a family member that was sent to one of these in the 90s. She's a hardline pro-lifer, but described it as mostly verbal and emotional abuse.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Grustaf 4y ago
So, does she regret having the twins or do they happen to be the best thing that ever happened to her?
- kraf 4y ago
  Not likely... There's a good chance she's alone with the kids and has to take on multiple jobs. Don't you think she will have sacrificed a lot of her own life for unwanted kids? Do you know somebody who's happy with a situation like this? I'm sure they exist but if you'll ask me for odds in a tough country like the USA I'll tell you they're bad.
  - Grustaf 4y ago
    I don't know the answer, it's an honest question. Obviously having children changes your life completely, it is a huge burden and you have to "sacrifice" a lot. But almost nobody regrets it. Probably because we are hardwired to have children. The joy outweighs any sacrifices. I don't know anyone that wishes they hadn't let their children be born, no matter how harsh their circumstances.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      > But almost nobody regrets it. It's worth noting how taboo it is to admit that you hate your children, and thus how vastly under-reported this attitude ends up being. > I don't know anyone that wishes they hadn't let their children be born, no matter how harsh their circumstances. I, in contrast, know several children who wish they hadn't been forced to grow up in abject poverty with an absentee parent who has no time or energy for them because of how much they have to work. Perhaps it's selfishness on the parent's part.
      - Grustaf 4y ago
        > It's worth noting how taboo it is to admit that you hate your children, and thus how vastly under-reported this attitude ends up being. Then how do you know anyone feels that way? Where do you get your information? > wish they hadn't been forced to grow up in abject poverty That's a different question altogether. We all wish we had been born in better circumstances, but that doesn't mean we resent being alive. The solution to children growing up in abject poverty is not abortion, it's social safety nets. Nobody should have to live in abject poverty in a rich country.
_milgram224 4y ago

by bbarn 4y ago

A former girlfriend of mine went to what she thought was a clinic, and was effectively scared out of having one, and had twins at 18. These scummy tactics work, or people wouldn't do them.

clarge1120 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

luxuryballs 4y ago

lukas099 4y ago
> I can’t imagine anything LESS scummy than helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very glad they were born By the same token, wouldn't it be unethical to not have as many kids as possible all the time? After all, those kids will be glad that they were born.
- malfist 4y ago
  Let's take it a step further. Shouldn't women be broodmares for the state, producing as many children as possible since all those kids will be glad that they were born. Their sacrifice during their childbearing years is worth it for the utilitarian benefit of more happy children. This is obviously not a serious suggestion, just calling into question the right of unborn children to have claims of an adult (or sometimes non-adult) woman.
- Grustaf 4y ago
  Not conceiving children is clearly not the same as killing them after conception. That said, there are plenty of people that would agree with the idea that we should have as many babies as we can. Utilitarians for example, and many traditional Christians.
  - malfist 4y ago
    > Not conceiving children is clearly not the same as killing them after conception. I don't think anyone is advocating killing children. Aborting a fetus, sure, but a fetus isn't a child any more than an acorn is an oak tree.
    - Grustaf 4y ago
      Ah you got me. If we call it a foetus then killing it clearly has no moral implications. Naming makes all the difference.
      - malfist 4y ago
        Riddle me this, is making flour from acorns murdering oak trees? Are you murdering potato plants when you eat french fries? Does munching on peanuts make you peanut hitler? If I have caviar, am I responsible for the murder of thousands of fish?
        Grustaf 4y ago
        Almost no acorns would have turned into trees, so the comparison falls down. If we look at saplings, we'd be closer, and obviously killing a sapling is more or less equivalent to killing an oak tree. We don't tend to talk about "murder" when it comes to plants. Peanuts and caviar are the same, or even more silly. Only with potatoes does the question make sense, and clearly the answer is yes, potato plants die when you harvest them. But almost nobody thinks that is an issue, since they are not even sentient.
        malfist 4y ago
        So what you're saying is, only things that are born matter if you kill them? In that case, you shouldn't have an issue with a fetus being aborted. Also, that's now how potatoes work. You harvest them after the plant has died. At least for potatoes used for french fries.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  There is a difference between a conceived person and an unconceived one. We assume an unborn person would prefer to be born than killed. An unconceived person doesn't exist at all, so there is no moral/ethical issue in not conceiving them. The exception maybe is biology, but there is still an upper limit to personal resources which one wouldn't want to exhaust due to the impact on their other (if any) children 's quality of life.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    > We assume an unborn person would prefer to be born than killed. A clump of cells doesn't have enough coherence to have a preference. In fact, babies don't have the kind of brain development necessary to comprehend this question, let alone form a preference until years after being born.
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      Of course, but obviously when left to nature, that newly created clump of cells, which is a new person in a primitive state, will eventually gain cognition and develop preferences. Your argument seems to suggest that a comatose person would have the same entitlement to life and an unborn person.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
CoffeeOnWrite 4y ago
The comment you’re replying to describes a bait and switch “counseling clinic”. Cf. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/pregnancy-clinics-bait-and-switch/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/pregnancy-clinics-... The moderate pro-life crowd should see this behavior as scummy and denounce it, as it taints their cause. IE take the high road to attaining their goals. Those in support of this behavior, have more deep ethical challenges, and I sincerely hope and believe are not the majority of pro-life voters.. (Using “pro-life” reluctantly here, to avoid distractions) Edit to add: my intent by this comment is to depolarize. It’s frustrating to see child comments from the pro-choice side that don’t take my hint :/ Let’s not engage with the extreme on either side folks, if we want to better understand the opposing points of view. Yes, the loudest voices are often the most extreme, and no the moderates don’t denounce (on both sides!), but we can try to do better on our beloved HN.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > The moderate pro-life crowd should see this behavior as scummy and denounce it, as it taints their cause. IE take the high road to attaining their goals. Why? To someone who thinks abortion is the murder of babies, what you advocate is priority inversion error. Your idea is a lot like saying the police in Uvalde shouldn't have gone in and (eventually) shot the school shooter, rather they should have "take[n] the high road to attaining their goals" and just talked to him until he stopped of his own accord.
  - CoffeeOnWrite 4y ago
    Police are peace officers with sworn duty bestowed lawfully and transparently by the state and supported by agreed upon best practices. I see no ethical qualms with courageously taking out the shooter. Private citizens conspiring to trick other private citizens, is not in the same ballpark or league.
  - esyir 4y ago
    Except that (virtually) nobody on the right truly believes that it's full fledged baby murder. They believe it's bad, but clearly, from their response, it's not anywhere near as bad as that. If your government/heathcare/someOtherOrg was grinding up babies post birth at scale, or any equivalent, I'd expect the response to be more riots and bombs, and less "Let's campaign for fifty odd years to get the capability to ban it in a number of states". Edit: Response to "of course they do": I strongly disbelieve that, simply because of their response There were ~600k abortions in 2021. If the right truly believed in their hearts that an abortion is directly equal to a murder, they'd basically be giving a pathetic response to what would be an absolutely "Final Solution" level crime. Estimates of the Jewish death toll were ~6 million and was responded to by full fledged, hot war. If their response to a holocaust every 10 years was "we'll slowly eke forward over 50Y, and manage to get bans in just half the country", that's a hell of a pathetic response.
kevinfiol 4y ago
Maybe we have a different idea of what "scummy" means, but I find using a bait-and-switch tactic to emotionally manipulate a teenager into birthing twins that they likely do not have the resources to raise (let alone the maturity) to be "scummy".
antifa 4y ago
> who are now likely very glad they were born Have you talked to young people? Stats and meme culture strongly suggest the opposite, and it's for economic reasons and reasons like loss of personal freedoms such as "women's bodily autonomy".
- spoils19 4y ago
  Personal freedoms that have no historical basis in the Constitution*.
raverbashing 4y ago
> because it seems impossible to understand the “the other side” As nicely exemplified by your post where you assume everybody should agree with your opinions on the matter > at least understand even if I disagree Oh we understand. It's because you can't tolerate other views as yourself (even within Christianism) The Taliban shares the same tolerance you display against different religious views
Workaccount2 4y ago
No one has ever been sad that they weren't born. "How would you feel if you weren't born?" is a nonsensical question.
- jonhohle 4y ago
  You do realize you can feel before you are born, right? Verbal communication and feeling are not the same. It is well established that newborns remember the sounds they heard prior to birth.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - falcolas 4y ago
    Which has nothing to do with wanting to be born. Feelings aren't understanding. Answering "did I want to be born" requires thought processes newborns aren't even capable of.
- luxuryballs 4y ago
  Yeah but you can be glad that you’re alive and find your life to be an experience you’re glad you’re having.
Runways 4y ago
Because tons of children will be born to parents that do not want them. They are not guaranteed to be adopted, and could be tossed into a foster system that is rife with physical and sexual abuse. There are many paths here that can lead to destitution, homelessness, lack of education, lack of compassion, lack of guidance, and exploitation. Once the baby is born, the people who forced that baby to be born no longer care about them. They are no longer a political pawn. In fact, they will continue to attack the social safety nets and programs that they could end up relying on to survive. Safe sex education so that this child doesn't have a baby? NO! That goes against the Bible. This is advantageous sometimes to the Christian nationalist cause, as they may be adopted by large fundamentalist families or lured towards religious charities that ARE subsidized through the state. Sounds crazy, but you should hear how some of these extremists talk. It's borderline child trafficking. It's funny you mention cutting up your insides. That's propaganda. Most abortions are done with pills, up to more than 12 months. What happens? It comes out as a heavy flow. That's it. Most people don't wait until they have an noticeable baby-bump to have an abortion. Most propaganda about the operation is dishonest, exaggerated, and straight up propaganda. Another fun fact is that these abortion laws are extremely draconian. Some have no exceptions for rape and/or incest. Meaning that rapists will and have been given parental visitation rights. Children victims can even be forced into this situation, disgusting. Had a miscarriage? That can now be investigated as a crime. Police can now get your messages, location data, search history, hard drives, and search your house. This is theocratic insanity, in America. Feels like Iran. Christians don't always behave this badly in other countries, but in America we've *really* sipped on the GOP/Christian propaganda Koolaid and we look like absolute clowns.
welshwelsh 4y ago
It's not killing someone. A fetus isn't a person. > I can’t imagine anything LESS scummy than helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very glad they were born So would it be ethical to rape someone and force them to give birth? Because the babies would be happy to be born and experiencing life? That's the same logic you're using. A fetus isn't a person. It's not sentient. It doesn't have hopes and dreams. Personally, I feel guiltier eating pork than having an abortion. Because unlike a fetus, pigs are highly intelligent, social and emotional beings. On the other hand, a woman is a person. She has the right to control her own body and her own life. If she doesn't want children, she should not be forced to have children. Even if she has sex! Yes, I know that's radical, but I believe that women should be able to have as much sex as they want, with whoever they want, even outside of marriage, without being punished with unwanted children. I know, and I'm sure you know, that's the real issue. Lots of people are uncomfortable with the concept of consequence-free sex. Christianity, the largest religion in the western world, teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong. That's why so many people who are against abortion "just happen" to be socially conservative. That's why they "just happen" to be against LGBT as well even though that has fuck-all to do with 'saving babies.' That's why they oppose comprehensive sex education and birth control access, even though that's the most obvious way to reduce unplanned pregnancies.
- snikeris 4y ago
  > I know, and I'm sure you know, that's the real issue. Lots of people are uncomfortable with the concept of consequence-free sex. Hard disagree that the abortion issue is primarily about consequence-free sex. You stated the issue in the first line: > A fetus isn't a person. Pro-life people vehemently disagree about this, and it's not coming from a place of prudishness. They are outraged because they feel like babies are being killed. > It's not killing someone. A fetus isn't a person. Isn't a fetus kind of like a tadpole? Sure, we may quibble that it isn't a person, but it is still a living being on the way to maturity. Killing a tadpole is killing _something_, right?
  - mojzu 4y ago
    Often the same groups opposing abortion also oppose the most effective policies to reduce abortions (proper sex ed, free birth control and family planning services, etc.). So while I agree there is an impasse on where the human life line is drawn, I would say it's fair to argue that prudishness/puritanical beliefs are a large factor in the opposition to legal abortion
tedajax 4y ago
em-bee 4y ago
what exactly are you trying to understand? how someone can feel not able to raise a child? how about trying to understand why this person feels not able, and what needs to change so that they will feel able? i don't see anyone working towards a society where people are actually supported to raise their children. people are promised help, but when the baby is there, no help is actually forthcoming. to help save lives, we need to work on our society to be helpful and welcoming to the children when they are actually born, and not just feel good about convincing someone to not have an abortion, with complete disregard for what comes afterwards.
rguiliani 4y ago
inetknght 4y ago
> helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very glad they were born I have met many people who hated their lives for many reasons. What makes you think these children won't? Some of the reasons include: - parents didn't want the children - children grew up poor - children grew up with disabilities - children were put up for adoption - the world is becoming uninhabitable for the children's children I can't imagine how someone could feel good about birthing a baby without also giving all of the necessary safeties. And that's just looking at the children's perspective. What about the parents'? Can you imagine having been raped, then being forced to carry an unwanted child to term, and then also being forced to pay child support to the rapist? Can you imagine wanting a child but then discovering that the child will be stillborn or worse: born with debilitating defects that you aren't capable of dealing with? If you want children then go have children. If you don't want children... then why should you be forced to? > my default is that you really shouldn’t be killing your offspring or cutting up your insides unless you are removing something like cancer or shrapnel. Indeed! Sometimes the baby is literally dying for reasons outside of your control. But without Roe v Wade then we cannot legally abort. A dying fetus can cause sepsis and death to the mother. That's certainly "something like cancer or shrapnel" in my book. I had a lot of head-burying opinions too until I had a long and deep conversation with a female friend about politics. She had the patience to listen to what I had to say with the knowledge and experience necessary to provide alternate views. I suggest that you ask the women around you what they think. Don't stop at one or two. Really listen to them. Listen to their perspectives and their opinions. Try to put yourself in their shoes. You will find that their perspectives and opinions differ from yours. You might even find that they enjoy things that you think should be sacred. You're not wrong and neither are they. But what is wrong is to force your morals and opinions onto them.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  The overturning of R v W left substantive due process in tact, so there is still room for abortions when the unborn child threatens the life or serious health (blindness, etc.) of the mother.
- noworriesnate 4y ago
  What if instead of presuming whether the children will hate their lives, we let them grow up to a certain age, say age 9, and then ask them if they hate their lives? If they say yes, kill them, if they say no, let them live. There is no moral difference between this solution and abortion if the fetus is a baby. If the fetus is not a baby then there is a moral difference though, so... I guess the real question is whether or not the fetus is a baby. My point is, any open-minded debate about abortion will always return to this question. As long as pro-abortion people ignore this question, they are talking past the pro-lifers and will never understand us.
ako 4y ago
If you want those children to be born, you could also vote for better child/parent support. Ensure those women that are pregnant have confidence that they can carry the responsibility of raising these children for 18 years. Ensure good affordable healthcare is provided for those that can't afford it, ensure good affordable education is provided, ensure good affordable childcare is provided for. Try helping instead of forbidding. And accept some children should not be born due to health, abuse, rape, etc.
asoneth 4y ago
I respect your question and have the same question from the reverse side. I similarly have difficulty understanding how Christians who follow a doctrine that appears to be so kind can behave in ways that seem so cruel and heartless to the rest of us. I suspect it is down to unbridgeable axiomatic differences. You see a fertilized egg as a human with rights, I see it as a cell with interesting potential, not particularly more deserving of rights than any other cell with potential. Even if I accepted that a fertilized egg has human rights, I don't understand why those rights outweigh the autonomy of the donor/host. What if I told you that your blood, bone marrow, kidney, or even lung could save another human's life at relatively minimal risk to your survival? (It's true, and I recommend everyone reading this be an organ donor and sign up for bethematch.com) But should the state be allowed to legally compel you to undertake these risks to save another human life? Judging the stories of pro-life advocates who get abortions while convincing themselves that "their situation is different" my assumption is that there is a basic lack of human empathy. I've found that this squares with the fact that many people oppose benefits and rights for others but then begin to support them when it personally impacts them.

the_only_law 4y ago

I have a family member that was sent to one of these in the 90s. She's a hardline pro-lifer, but described it as mostly verbal and emotional abuse.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Grustaf 4y ago

So, does she regret having the twins or do they happen to be the best thing that ever happened to her?

kraf 4y ago
Not likely... There's a good chance she's alone with the kids and has to take on multiple jobs. Don't you think she will have sacrificed a lot of her own life for unwanted kids? Do you know somebody who's happy with a situation like this? I'm sure they exist but if you'll ask me for odds in a tough country like the USA I'll tell you they're bad.
- Grustaf 4y ago
  I don't know the answer, it's an honest question. Obviously having children changes your life completely, it is a huge burden and you have to "sacrifice" a lot. But almost nobody regrets it. Probably because we are hardwired to have children. The joy outweighs any sacrifices. I don't know anyone that wishes they hadn't let their children be born, no matter how harsh their circumstances.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    > But almost nobody regrets it. It's worth noting how taboo it is to admit that you hate your children, and thus how vastly under-reported this attitude ends up being. > I don't know anyone that wishes they hadn't let their children be born, no matter how harsh their circumstances. I, in contrast, know several children who wish they hadn't been forced to grow up in abject poverty with an absentee parent who has no time or energy for them because of how much they have to work. Perhaps it's selfishness on the parent's part.
    - Grustaf 4y ago
      > It's worth noting how taboo it is to admit that you hate your children, and thus how vastly under-reported this attitude ends up being. Then how do you know anyone feels that way? Where do you get your information? > wish they hadn't been forced to grow up in abject poverty That's a different question altogether. We all wish we had been born in better circumstances, but that doesn't mean we resent being alive. The solution to children growing up in abject poverty is not abortion, it's social safety nets. Nobody should have to live in abject poverty in a rich country.

_milgram224 4y ago