5 ms·
Good for them. People who don't like abortion (for whatever reason) should be all in favor of better contraception methods. What better way to avoid an abortio
by discardorama 11y ago
Good for them.
People who don't like abortion (for whatever reason) should be all in favor of better contraception methods. What better way to avoid an abortion than to not become pregnant at all? Those who oppose contraceptives reveal themselves for who they really are: people with middle-ages thinking who think that a woman's job is to just bear babies.
- chokolad 11y agoI had an argument recently with someone who is anti-abortion and his opinion is that life starts when sperm and egg meet. Anything preventing implantation of an egg is essentially killing of a baby - hence IUD is not acceptable contraception method. Condom is though. Or anything else which prevents sperm from meeting an egg.
- chimeracoder 11y ago> I had an argument recently with someone who is anti-abortion and his opinion is that life starts when sperm and egg meet. Anything preventing implantation of an egg is essentially killing of a baby This is a pretty common opinion among anti-choice people. One of the many divides in views on abortion is between people who believe life begins at birth vs. before birth, with a significant number of the latter believing life begins at conception. EDIT: Obviously views on abortion are complicated and vary widely. All I'm saying is that it's really not hard to find people who will tell you life begins at conception (and by that logic, believe that killing a fertilized egg is equivalent to killing a baby).
- benjohnson 11y agoFrom what I've seen, people with a pro-choice viewpoint generally acknowledge that life biologically begins at conception. The split in viewpoints, as I understand it, is that early life isn't significant enough to protect at that stage of development.
- task_queue 11y agoThose egg and sperm cells are quite alive before they meet.
- jonah 11y agoHowever neither carries a full copy of a person's DNA. They're only "alive" in that they're biological.
- mistermann 11y agoFWIW, from any of these debates I've read on reddit at least, I've encountered almost no pro-choice people who believe life begins at conception. The party line seems to be that it is a zygote until birth - well, of course they'd never state it in such clear terms as that, instead you get any variety of mental gymnastics to avoid the question, but one thing they are absolutely certain about is, it is not a life.
- nickff 11y agoPlease refrain from using epithets to caricature opposing views. This includes calling another group 'anti-choice', 'anti-life', 'pro-coercion', or 'pro-death'. >"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names."[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- chimeracoder 11y ago> Please refrain from using epithets to caricature opposing views. This includes calling another group 'anti-choice', 'anti-life', 'pro-coercion', or 'pro-death'. I don't really like the term 'anti-choice', but 'pro-life' is also an epithet that many pro-choice people dislike (because it implies that pro-choice people somehow oppose life). 'pro/anti-abortion' are problematic for similar reasons. So while I'd like to use an uncontended term, I really don't know of one.
- nickff 11y agoYour opponents are of a similar mind. Consider what happens when I switch the 'life' and 'choice' in your comment. >I don't really like the term 'anti-life', but 'pro-choice' is also an epithet that many pro-life people dislike (because it implies that pro-life people somehow oppose choice). Your reasoning is just as strong when used against you, as when you employ it.
- chimeracoder 11y ago> Your reasoning is just as strong when used against you, as when you employ it. It fails by parity of reasoning. So what neutral term would you suggest we use instead that is acceptable to everyone being described? > Your opponents are of a similar mind. Please don't make assumptions about my views on abortion or who my "opponents" are, especially since I've very explicitly tried to refrain from opining on the matter.
- 11y ago
- steve19 11y agoI don't think that is the main divide. The divide would be life at contraception vs. life at some point in time during the pregnancy/fetus development. Where that line is seems to differ from country to country.
- Gibbon1 11y agoNo the main divide is over who controls women's sexuality. Full stop.
- Abraln 11y agoAgreed which is why the issue gets so complicated. Drawing moral lines is tricky. I can't think of anyone I have met who has argued that an abortion 24 hours before the birth would occur naturally is morally acceptable. It will be interesting to see how the debate changes as technology advances. If x years from now doctors are able to move a 2nd or even 1st trimester fetus into an artificial womb instead of aborting it, should abortions still be legal? What if it is more expensive/uncomfortable for the woman? Should the fetus then have full human rights once separated from its mother? All deep and interesting questions.
- dennisgorelik 11y ago> among anti-choice people Unless you want to be called "anti-life" it's better to use traditional names for such groups: "pro-choice" and "pro-life".
- steve19 11y agoIUD prevent fertilization, they may also prevent implantation but this is only likely to happen if it has been inserted after sex.
- jbapple 11y ago> his opinion is that life starts when sperm and egg meet. There is some evidence that a large percentage (30-75%) of all fertilized eggs do not implant. If every one of those was a human life, your friend might consider this an extremely large public health problem, and perhaps of greater significance than poverty, war, and plagues.
- funkyy 11y agoNot everyone goes against abortion because of the religion. There is more in to it, like cultural drop of values, increased risk of sexual transmitted viruses, drop in family values.
- __david__ 11y agoFrom what I've seen, almost all people talking about values are pretty religious. I'm not sure I've ever seen someone irreligious talk about cultural values at all. So I'd argue that even though an anti-abortion attitude may not be directly religious, it almost always seems to stem from religion. This, of course, could be related to where I live. I do wonder though: what specific cultural values does abortion cause a drop in?
- mistermann 11y agoI'm an atheist and while not fully in the pro-life camp, I'm certainly not a full-fledged advocate of pro-choice.
- Abraln 11y agoThe main one I have heard is empathy, but also a drop in selflessness (as in valuing your own discomfort over the potential life inside of you), and commitment (I have heard it linked multiple times to be increase in divorce rates, aka commitments are not treated seriously.) I'm not saying I agree with any or all of these, just I've heard them.
- amake 11y agoOh please. Define "(family) values" and what would constitute a "drop" in them. Even if you are able to do so, you are mistaken 1. that people currently share your so-called values, and 2. that you have any business identifying or imposing desirable values. Keep your "values" to yourself, please. (I didn't even touch on "increased risk of sexual transmitted viruses [sic]"; by the time abortion comes into play, STIs are a done deal, so what in the world are you talking about?)
- 11y ago
- woodman 11y ago> Those who oppose contraceptives reveal themselves for ... It isn't that simple. I was hoping that the article would dive into the reason why contributors to these endeavors are so quite about it, given the title, but unfortunately it didn't. I'm guessing that it has something to do with the very touchy issue of eugenics, the attempts to use birth control to reduce the number of "unfit", and the fact that early eugenicists and birth control proponents where also wealthy white people. [0] The parallels are so easily drawn that it is much more simple to just keep a relatively low profile. So some of those middle-ages minded people you mentioned might actually be more concerned about the long term impact of disproportionately servicing the historically vulnerable with birth control. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics
- bilbo0s 11y agoI'm guessing you probably don't work in Health Care. Or if you do, you don't work at the level of policy or population health. The issue with implementing Eugenics in certain populations... is that suspicion of Health Care workers is abnormally high in those populations. I'm not talking about the mentally ill, or the deficient. But certain ethnic populations harbor DEEP suspicions of medical professionals and the medical industry in general. So, over time, it's become hard to get those populations to do even those things that really are objectively "good" for their health. Let alone implement a Eugenics effort. The problem is social... not technological. We have had cheap, and effective technology to keep people from getting pregnant for decades. How do you get people to use it??? If you had ever worked in health care, you would realize this is not so simple a question to answer. You have to get people to trust you. That's what Buffet should have spent his money on. Getting certain populations to trust medical professionals. All Liletta is... is yet another birth control device. We have those already. How do you get people to use them??? I mean forget Liletta. How do you get people to use ANY of them ???? The patch? Implants? The pill? ANYTHING? If Eugenics was the goal, the money was wasted. Because what you need for Eugenics... is cooperation. And, right now, you just don't have that from certain populations. Now... if you could FORCE them to use birth control... then you'd be on to something. But that's already been tried... with Norplant. And it turns out that forcing them doesn't really work either.