4 ms·

You're not making sense. Exercising control over other people is a very high price to pay for implementing someone else's idea. It has to happen at times, sure,

by epakai 3y ago

You're not making sense. Exercising control over other people is a very high price to pay for implementing someone else's idea. It has to happen at times, sure, but the onus is on the group outcome outweighing the individual preference. Here the only persons directly affected by a choice to abort is a very small family unit. If the concern was the group outcome then we would instead be encouraging births rather than punishing those who don't want a birth, but that's definitely not the intent as we've seen time and time again in these punitive laws.

verdverm 3y ago
Should murder be a pro-choice thing? If you, based on your values, see something as tantamount to murder, why would you let people decide if they can take a life or not You're thinking on this is stuck in your own belief system. Try empathizing I'm pro-meta-choice fwiw and if that is not clear to you
- epakai 3y ago
  Seatbelts obviously represent a net benefit for the group. I don't think it's worth rehashing the details. I'm not even sure I should try addressing murder... it's pretty obvious one person's will here has a major effect at removing another person's. Suicide feels like a better example; There are many societal reason to discourage it, while at the same time recognizing that it curtails an individual's choice to continue living. If the conservative position was limited to the murder aspect then this would be a lot easier. Many of the laws go far beyond that, limiting access to abortion even in extreme cases. Even more-so they would attack sex education, prophylactics, birth control, etc. It's simply better not to apply your morals to everyone else's actions when no one is harmed, and the outcome has no effect no you. I'm sorry to be rude, but telling me to empathize reads like a gotcha type statement implying I'm a 'bleeding heart liberal', but somehow not being empathetic because I reject some specific beliefs. Bad beliefs deserve to be rejected. If your statement was intended as I'm reading it, then fuck that noise. I don't know what it means to be pro-meta-choice. Is this some kind of thought exercise where you ignore the actual outcomes, and go along with your preferred outcome, but rebrand it as choice?
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > If you, based on your values, see something as tantamount to murder, why would you let people decide if they can take a life or not Some people see contraception as tantamount to murder. It boils down to raw power. Justice White's dissent in Roe referred to the Court's decision as "raw judicial power," but states prohibiting abortion in all circumstances are really exercising raw religion power.

by epakai 3y ago

verdverm 3y ago

Should murder be a pro-choice thing? If you, based on your values, see something as tantamount to murder, why would you let people decide if they can take a life or not You're thinking on this is stuck in your own belief system. Try empathizing I'm pro-meta-choice fwiw and if that is not clear to you

epakai 3y ago
Seatbelts obviously represent a net benefit for the group. I don't think it's worth rehashing the details. I'm not even sure I should try addressing murder... it's pretty obvious one person's will here has a major effect at removing another person's. Suicide feels like a better example; There are many societal reason to discourage it, while at the same time recognizing that it curtails an individual's choice to continue living. If the conservative position was limited to the murder aspect then this would be a lot easier. Many of the laws go far beyond that, limiting access to abortion even in extreme cases. Even more-so they would attack sex education, prophylactics, birth control, etc. It's simply better not to apply your morals to everyone else's actions when no one is harmed, and the outcome has no effect no you. I'm sorry to be rude, but telling me to empathize reads like a gotcha type statement implying I'm a 'bleeding heart liberal', but somehow not being empathetic because I reject some specific beliefs. Bad beliefs deserve to be rejected. If your statement was intended as I'm reading it, then fuck that noise. I don't know what it means to be pro-meta-choice. Is this some kind of thought exercise where you ignore the actual outcomes, and go along with your preferred outcome, but rebrand it as choice?
dctoedt 3y ago
> If you, based on your values, see something as tantamount to murder, why would you let people decide if they can take a life or not Some people see contraception as tantamount to murder. It boils down to raw power. Justice White's dissent in Roe referred to the Court's decision as "raw judicial power," but states prohibiting abortion in all circumstances are really exercising raw religion power.