4 ms·

Yeah, that's absolutely swinging back too far. Both extremes are pretty stupid IMO. And this completely undermines majority of people who actually hold more mod

Yeah, that's absolutely swinging back too far. Both extremes are pretty stupid IMO. And this completely undermines majority of people who actually hold more moderate views. (Abortion is a states responsibility, not federal, and should be limited to the first trimester, are my views, for example)

michaelmcdonald 4y ago
Sounds like we found a male who not only doesn’t have to deal with the repercussions of any pregnancy complications, but hasn’t known anyone personally that has had to deal with a late term pregnancy complication. You are the exact type of individual that should. It have any day in this debate. It doesn’t affect you and you’re imposing your beliefs on other people who don’t share your viewpoint.
- Akronymus 4y ago
  I specifically meant no reason abortion being limited. Of course, medically necessary abortions should be legal at any time. Sorry for not spelling it out properly.
  - olliej 4y ago
    So you believe a state should be able to force people to undergo medical procedures? Or does it only apply to women being forced to give birth?
    - Akronymus 4y ago
      I believe that the baby has a right to life, if it doesn't endanger the mother. If that includes being born, and the birth is a medical procedure, then I guess I am advocating for it.
      - l3uwin 4y ago
        So 13 year old rape victims who aren't about to die should be forced to give birth and become the legal guardian of another child. Way to ruin two lives at once.
        olliej 4y ago
        The forced-birth crowd overlaps strongly with the "that 13 year old was clearly asking for it" so that argument doesn't work (the primary reason for forced birth is to punish women who dare to have sex). But also, while I get what you're saying, it's a diversion: no one can force you to do anything with your body, or undergo any medical procedure, for any reason, even to save someone else's life. The only case where an exception is made, is when it involves controlling women, which has always been the case. If you have a matching kidney for someone who will die without it, no one can ever force you to give up your kidney, and that's not even something that kills you. If it's an emergency and someone will die without a blood transfusion, and you're the only person with the right blood type, no one can make you donate blood. It doesn't matter if it's a stranger, or your child, no one can ever force you to do anything with your body, no matter how many lives it would save. Forced birth however, especially in america with some remarkably biased birth mortality rates (black women are 2.5x more likely to die in labour than white Americans, some states have 2x the mortality rate of others), means being forced to risk your life and body against your will. Especially egregious because the most pro-forced birth Staes in america are among those with the highest labour mortality rates, and the lowest amount of support services for the mothers or children. Again, the mortality is a convenient side effect, the primary purpose is to punish the women who dared to have sex.
        Akronymus 4y ago
        Thanks, I forgot to exhaustively enumerate all the exceptions, that make sense in my eyes. Like rape victims.
        l3uwin 4y ago
        the required existence of an exhaustive list of exceptions to your rule indicates it's a bad rule
olliej 4y ago
- Akronymus 4y ago
musicale 4y ago
People are already arguing with your stated position (even HN is not immune to flames occasionally) but what I am getting from your statement is there are likely some majority consensus positions for certain situations – even if it's not what we usually hear in the debate. What we often hear on contentious issues is each side accusing the other of bad faith, at which point productive discussion becomes very unlikely.
- Akronymus 4y ago
  Yeah, I wanted to express that there can be a consesus that can be achieved. And that such extreme moves as in the article undermines that process. Clearly I shouldn't have, because this turned into a flame war.

michaelmcdonald 4y ago

Sounds like we found a male who not only doesn’t have to deal with the repercussions of any pregnancy complications, but hasn’t known anyone personally that has had to deal with a late term pregnancy complication. You are the exact type of individual that should. It have any day in this debate. It doesn’t affect you and you’re imposing your beliefs on other people who don’t share your viewpoint.

Akronymus 4y ago
I specifically meant no reason abortion being limited. Of course, medically necessary abortions should be legal at any time. Sorry for not spelling it out properly.
- olliej 4y ago
  So you believe a state should be able to force people to undergo medical procedures? Or does it only apply to women being forced to give birth?
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    I believe that the baby has a right to life, if it doesn't endanger the mother. If that includes being born, and the birth is a medical procedure, then I guess I am advocating for it.
    - l3uwin 4y ago
      So 13 year old rape victims who aren't about to die should be forced to give birth and become the legal guardian of another child. Way to ruin two lives at once.
      - olliej 4y ago
        The forced-birth crowd overlaps strongly with the "that 13 year old was clearly asking for it" so that argument doesn't work (the primary reason for forced birth is to punish women who dare to have sex). But also, while I get what you're saying, it's a diversion: no one can force you to do anything with your body, or undergo any medical procedure, for any reason, even to save someone else's life. The only case where an exception is made, is when it involves controlling women, which has always been the case. If you have a matching kidney for someone who will die without it, no one can ever force you to give up your kidney, and that's not even something that kills you. If it's an emergency and someone will die without a blood transfusion, and you're the only person with the right blood type, no one can make you donate blood. It doesn't matter if it's a stranger, or your child, no one can ever force you to do anything with your body, no matter how many lives it would save. Forced birth however, especially in america with some remarkably biased birth mortality rates (black women are 2.5x more likely to die in labour than white Americans, some states have 2x the mortality rate of others), means being forced to risk your life and body against your will. Especially egregious because the most pro-forced birth Staes in america are among those with the highest labour mortality rates, and the lowest amount of support services for the mothers or children. Again, the mortality is a convenient side effect, the primary purpose is to punish the women who dared to have sex.
      - Akronymus 4y ago
        Thanks, I forgot to exhaustively enumerate all the exceptions, that make sense in my eyes. Like rape victims.
        l3uwin 4y ago
        the required existence of an exhaustive list of exceptions to your rule indicates it's a bad rule

olliej 4y ago

Akronymus 4y ago

musicale 4y ago

People are already arguing with your stated position (even HN is not immune to flames occasionally) but what I am getting from your statement is there are likely some majority consensus positions for certain situations – even if it's not what we usually hear in the debate. What we often hear on contentious issues is each side accusing the other of bad faith, at which point productive discussion becomes very unlikely.

Akronymus 4y ago
Yeah, I wanted to express that there can be a consesus that can be achieved. And that such extreme moves as in the article undermines that process. Clearly I shouldn't have, because this turned into a flame war.