10 ms·

And many people are opposed to abortion for moral reasons.

by slashdev 1y ago

jtbayly 1y ago
Yes, and this is why the fact that hormonal birth control can be abortifacient is often downplayed, hidden, or denied.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- nielsbot 1y ago
  Do you think we should do something about that?
therealpygon 1y ago
As they have the right to…for themselves.
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - lightbritefight 1y ago
    Do you have a soul? Do I? You can indeed live a life in fear of holy retribution, but you do not have the right to force others to do so as well.
    - gjsman-1000 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - saagarjha 1y ago
        I think trying to appeal to divine authority is unlikely to get you far with a group of people who reject divine authority.
        gjsman-1000 1y ago
        [flagged]
        saagarjha 1y ago
        I didn't say anything; I'm not the person you were replying to. But I will say that I suspect your arguments that God has the authority over a document people wrote is, again, unlikely to find an audience among those who don't think He exists.
        giantg2 1y ago
        I'm not sure why people get religious about this. The far more interesting approach is to try to use reason along side other current laws to determine the answer to two questions - what defines a human life, and when is it acceptable to take one? For example, trying to compare things like medical support for preterm babies to medical support of coma patients to investigate the logic behind viable fetuses vs various life support methods, etc.
        h3half 1y ago
        A similar interesting situation is how in some cases murdering a pregnant woman counts as a double homicide because the law includes the unborn child
  - anakaine 1y ago
    If you prescribed to that particular facet of belief, that is are you problem. Don't try and push your dogmatic views down others throats.
    - gjsman-1000 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - anakaine 1y ago
        Case in point, quit waving your religious dogma in my face. Its not wanted. I've no desire, and quite frankly, absolutely no need, to be careful what I bet on in terms of beliefs. Anything that requires belief without proof meeting even the most meagre bar height is nonsense. Since you seem to be giving others here a hard time about Abrahamic ideas of belief, hell, and morals, I'll leave you with a quote from your own book: Matthew 6:1: “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
      - shakna 1y ago
        Each of those has sects that do not follow the talking point you're putting forward. If it isn't clear to them, then by what right do you get to declare the truth for everyone else? Go debate some more, before trying to unilaterally rule for all mankind.
      - samtheDamned 1y ago
        Islam typically sides with people doing what they have to to live, including eating pork if that is what it takes to survive. In regards to abortion, the mothers life takes paramount.
      - cthalupa 1y ago
        For most of it's history Protestantism did not take any specific issue with abortion and considered it a weird Catholic thing similar to their views on birth control. It wasn't until the 1960s that this shifted, largely due to political machinations.
- anakaine 1y ago
  This is absolutely the most critical point. Contraception should be readily available for those that want it. Abortion should absolutely and definitevely be available for those that want and need it. There are far too many opinions connected to religious dogma, both consciously and unconsciously, that seek to deny women and couples access to abortion. Even the damned bible offers up instructions on abortives and how to use them, but this seems to be glossed over by hand wringing people who want to insert their rosaries into women's ovaries.
- gruez 1y ago
  That quickly breaks down when you apply it to some of the recent culture war topics. For instance: * as it relates to vaccine mandates: "As they have the right to…for themselves. * as it relates to calling people by their preferred pronouns: "As they have the right to…for themselves." Of course, both issues are far more nuanced than a simple "As they have the right to…for themselves" can refute, but so is abortion. You can't take complex issues and take potshots at them with one sentence comments.
  - zamalek 1y ago
    It's all so much more simple than that. It boils down to a social contract. The contract being common decency. Vaccinations are part of that contract (it affects others), pronouns are part of that contract (they affect others), abortions _are not_ (the only affect those having them, and potentially the medical professionals). There is no nuance at all. You are free, of course, to not "sign" that contract - but that means that those who have are not obligated to apply it to you.
    - cko 1y ago
      I'm pro choice, but let me play devil's advocate. If you view the fetus? embryo? as a human life, then abortion doesn't just affect the person having it, but also the life being aborted. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed? So for some people it's not that simple.
      - max__dev 1y ago
        I'm pro commenting, but let me play devil's advocate. If you view leaving a comment as murder, then commenting doesn't just affect the person partaking in it, but also the life of everyone reading the comments. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed? Here's is my point though: if you assume something is murder, of course you will conclude that it is bad. There's no "Devil's advocate"—or for that matter—any argument at all to be had. The entire debate revolves around the assumption you simply asserted for "Devil's advocate".
nielsbot 1y ago
what are those?

And many people are opposed to abortion for moral reasons.

jtbayly 1y ago

Yes, and this is why the fact that hormonal birth control can be abortifacient is often downplayed, hidden, or denied.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
nielsbot 1y ago
Do you think we should do something about that?

therealpygon 1y ago

As they have the right to…for themselves.

gjsman-1000 1y ago
[flagged]
- lightbritefight 1y ago
  Do you have a soul? Do I? You can indeed live a life in fear of holy retribution, but you do not have the right to force others to do so as well.
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - saagarjha 1y ago
      I think trying to appeal to divine authority is unlikely to get you far with a group of people who reject divine authority.
      - gjsman-1000 1y ago
        [flagged]
        saagarjha 1y ago
        I didn't say anything; I'm not the person you were replying to. But I will say that I suspect your arguments that God has the authority over a document people wrote is, again, unlikely to find an audience among those who don't think He exists.
      - giantg2 1y ago
        I'm not sure why people get religious about this. The far more interesting approach is to try to use reason along side other current laws to determine the answer to two questions - what defines a human life, and when is it acceptable to take one? For example, trying to compare things like medical support for preterm babies to medical support of coma patients to investigate the logic behind viable fetuses vs various life support methods, etc.
        h3half 1y ago
        A similar interesting situation is how in some cases murdering a pregnant woman counts as a double homicide because the law includes the unborn child
- anakaine 1y ago
  If you prescribed to that particular facet of belief, that is are you problem. Don't try and push your dogmatic views down others throats.
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - anakaine 1y ago
      Case in point, quit waving your religious dogma in my face. Its not wanted. I've no desire, and quite frankly, absolutely no need, to be careful what I bet on in terms of beliefs. Anything that requires belief without proof meeting even the most meagre bar height is nonsense. Since you seem to be giving others here a hard time about Abrahamic ideas of belief, hell, and morals, I'll leave you with a quote from your own book: Matthew 6:1: “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
    - shakna 1y ago
      Each of those has sects that do not follow the talking point you're putting forward. If it isn't clear to them, then by what right do you get to declare the truth for everyone else? Go debate some more, before trying to unilaterally rule for all mankind.
    - samtheDamned 1y ago
      Islam typically sides with people doing what they have to to live, including eating pork if that is what it takes to survive. In regards to abortion, the mothers life takes paramount.
    - cthalupa 1y ago
      For most of it's history Protestantism did not take any specific issue with abortion and considered it a weird Catholic thing similar to their views on birth control. It wasn't until the 1960s that this shifted, largely due to political machinations.
anakaine 1y ago
This is absolutely the most critical point. Contraception should be readily available for those that want it. Abortion should absolutely and definitevely be available for those that want and need it. There are far too many opinions connected to religious dogma, both consciously and unconsciously, that seek to deny women and couples access to abortion. Even the damned bible offers up instructions on abortives and how to use them, but this seems to be glossed over by hand wringing people who want to insert their rosaries into women's ovaries.
gruez 1y ago
That quickly breaks down when you apply it to some of the recent culture war topics. For instance: * as it relates to vaccine mandates: "As they have the right to…for themselves. * as it relates to calling people by their preferred pronouns: "As they have the right to…for themselves." Of course, both issues are far more nuanced than a simple "As they have the right to…for themselves" can refute, but so is abortion. You can't take complex issues and take potshots at them with one sentence comments.
- zamalek 1y ago
  It's all so much more simple than that. It boils down to a social contract. The contract being common decency. Vaccinations are part of that contract (it affects others), pronouns are part of that contract (they affect others), abortions _are not_ (the only affect those having them, and potentially the medical professionals). There is no nuance at all. You are free, of course, to not "sign" that contract - but that means that those who have are not obligated to apply it to you.
  - cko 1y ago
    I'm pro choice, but let me play devil's advocate. If you view the fetus? embryo? as a human life, then abortion doesn't just affect the person having it, but also the life being aborted. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed? So for some people it's not that simple.
    - max__dev 1y ago
      I'm pro commenting, but let me play devil's advocate. If you view leaving a comment as murder, then commenting doesn't just affect the person partaking in it, but also the life of everyone reading the comments. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed? Here's is my point though: if you assume something is murder, of course you will conclude that it is bad. There's no "Devil's advocate"—or for that matter—any argument at all to be had. The entire debate revolves around the assumption you simply asserted for "Devil's advocate".

nielsbot 1y ago

what are those?