[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Punished UMN]

It's not the quote that's insincere, it's the implication that pro-life people don't actually believe their own arguments and have some ulterior motive to enslave women.

Well, it's kind of hard to ignore the high levels of support for such things as the death penalty, lack of free healthcare and opposition to public services to help parents struggling finically as being signs of people truly concerned for the well being of their fellow humans.

I agree, but 1) that doesn't represent the entirety of the pro-life movement (the Catholic Church is the backbone of the pro-life movement is is extremely pro-social services and has recently made it illicit for members to support the death penalty), and 2) most people, pro-life people included, are extremely inconsistent in the application of their ideology because most people don't have an ideology so much as they have a loose collection of policies they support.

[Godular]

If it struck a nerve, it mayhap was more apt than you’re willing to admit.

"If people insulting you makes you mad, that must mean it's true"

I never particularly insulted them though. They seem oddly tore up about a quote that I honestly thought to be pretty innocuous, and explained the usage of in a later post. They continue to be taking it personally, which honestly makes me think it's entering into 'protesting too much' territory.

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

Poland doubles down on abortions

The Dominican Republic has also doubled down, completely banning abortion. Previously it was legal in case of risk to the mother's life. It joins Nicaragua and El Salvador as one of the world's only countries to have zero exceptions on its abortion ban.

[Albrenia]

Well, it's kind of hard to ignore the high levels of support for such things as the death penalty, lack of free healthcare and opposition to public services to help parents struggling finically as being signs of people truly concerned for the well being of their fellow humans.

I agree, but 1) that doesn't represent the entirety of the pro-life movement (the Catholic Church is the backbone of the pro-life movement is is extremely pro-social services and has recently made it illicit for members to support the death penalty), and 2) most people, pro-life people included, are extremely inconsistent in the application of their ideology because most people don't have an ideology so much as they have a loose collection of policies they support.

This is true. Many in the pro-life movement are indeed not hypocritical.

The door swings both ways too, with 'pro-choice' people often supporting mandatory things in other areas, like needing vaccinations to go to school and the like... including me actualy.

[Godular]

What is insincere about the Carlin quote? Its a legitimate question.

No one can force you to get a tattoo or a piercing or have six pack abs or get medical treatment although the last thing may have a few exceptions. Why does a fetus have more rights than a person does?

It's not the quote that's insincere, it's the implication that pro-life people don't actually believe their own arguments and have some ulterior motive to enslave women.

That was not the implication I was presenting either. I was passing commentary on their argument that it is somehow equal to allow the fetus special dispensations that are not afforded to any other born persons in regards to using another person's body without their consent.

[Punished UMN]

It's not the quote that's insincere, it's the implication that pro-life people don't actually believe their own arguments and have some ulterior motive to enslave women.

That was not the implication I was presenting either. I was passing commentary on their argument that it is somehow equal to allow the fetus special dispensations that are not afforded to any other born persons in regards to using another person's body without their consent.

I'm not sure his comment was directed at you specifically so much as at some on the pro-choice side generally.

[Punished UMN]

I agree, but 1) that doesn't represent the entirety of the pro-life movement (the Catholic Church is the backbone of the pro-life movement is is extremely pro-social services and has recently made it illicit for members to support the death penalty), and 2) most people, pro-life people included, are extremely inconsistent in the application of their ideology because most people don't have an ideology so much as they have a loose collection of policies they support.

This is true. Many in the pro-life movement are indeed not hypocritical.

The door swings both ways too, with 'pro-choice' people often supporting mandatory things in other areas, like needing vaccinations to go to school and the like... including me actualy.

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. The vast majority of people in-general and not just supporters of any particular policy, are inconsistent on many things, just because most people (myself included on some things) haven't thought through every logical conclusion of what they support.

[Godular]

That was not the implication I was presenting either. I was passing commentary on their argument that it is somehow equal to allow the fetus special dispensations that are not afforded to any other born persons in regards to using another person's body without their consent.

I'm not sure his comment was directed at you specifically so much as at some on the pro-choice side generally.

Well considering they were rather specifically calling out my quote and using 'hurr durr' with it, one is conferred the impression that exception was taken. I explained myself, and they still demonstrated a slighted demeanor about it. That's enough to get me to go 'hmmm'.

You know me well enough, UMN. When I'm jabbing, you'll DAMN well know it.

[Punished UMN]

I'm not sure his comment was directed at you specifically so much as at some on the pro-choice side generally.

Well considering they were rather specifically calling out my quote and using 'hurr durr' with it, one is conferred the impression that exception was taken. I explained myself, and they still demonstrated a slighted demeanor about it. That's enough to get me to go 'hmmm'.

You know me well enough, UMN. When I'm jabbing, you'll DAMN well know it.

I didn't read the whole conversation tbh, I didn't even realize he had quoted you until you said so, since I don't regularly follow the thread.

[The Marlborough]

Well, it's kind of hard to ignore the high levels of support for such things as the death penalty, lack of free healthcare and opposition to public services to help parents struggling finically as being signs of people truly concerned for the well being of their fellow humans.

I agree, but 1) that doesn't represent the entirety of the pro-life movement (the Catholic Church is the backbone of the pro-life movement is is extremely pro-social services and has recently made it illicit for members to support the death penalty), and 2) most people, pro-life people included, are extremely inconsistent in the application of their ideology because most people don't have an ideology so much as they have a loose collection of policies they support.

Not to mention that there are arguments people make about why they are against abortion while accepting of the death penalty which, even if one disagrees, are not inherently contradictory. Further, once again of course, the entire pro-life movement isn't composed of Americans.

[The Marlborough]

I'm not sure his comment was directed at you specifically so much as at some on the pro-choice side generally.

Well considering they were rather specifically calling out my quote and using 'hurr durr' with it, one is conferred the impression that exception was taken. I explained myself, and they still demonstrated a slighted demeanor about it. That's enough to get me to go 'hmmm'.

You know me well enough, UMN. When I'm jabbing, you'll DAMN well know it.

So if I imply all Americans want to lynch black people and an American takes exception to that, that must mean that they really do wish to lynch black people? Or is taking exception to something you feel is an unfair and inaccurate generalization not allowed?

[Godular]

Well considering they were rather specifically calling out my quote and using 'hurr durr' with it, one is conferred the impression that exception was taken. I explained myself, and they still demonstrated a slighted demeanor about it. That's enough to get me to go 'hmmm'.

You know me well enough, UMN. When I'm jabbing, you'll DAMN well know it.

So if I imply all Americans want to lynch black people and an American takes exception to that, that must mean that they really do wish to lynch black people? Or is taking exception to something you feel is an unfair and inaccurate generalization not allowed?

Wishing to correct the incorrect impression? That's totally fine. So far my impression has been borne through, though.

Taking it personally? Protesting too much.

To specify, I used that quote that seems to have you up in arms as a commentary against your argument. SPECIFICALLY. YOUR. ARGUMENT.

Your attempts to correlate my comment to anything involves claiming that I am making a passing judgement about the entire purported pro-life demographic. I mean, seriously? I attacked your argument and you're acting as if I made a fucking racial slur.

I'm FULLY aware that pro-life types can have varying opinions on the issue, I've personally curated this megathread through MULTIPLE iterations, to the point that mods will actually come to me and ask if I'm ready for the next round when the time comes. I have seen some variety. It is not my inherent objective here to provoke, so much as to cast things in a different perspective.

You can even read my OP post in this very thread. I THINK YOU WOULD FIND IT APPROPRIATE.

[Katganistan]

I read it. It's still a double standard. "It's ok to have an abortion when I decide it's morally ok to have one, despite arguments of innocence of the life when I think you shouldn't have the right to determine whether you want to have a child/be pregnant."

Well no, in the cases of rape and incest, there’s usually threat to the mothers life so abortion is justified as a form of self preservation. Otherwise, it is not justified and shouldn’t be allowed as its killing a human being

What threat to her life, that is not present in any pregnancy she does not wish to continue? Please explain.

[Neanderthaland]

Well no, in the cases of rape and incest, there’s usually threat to the mothers life so abortion is justified as a form of self preservation. Otherwise, it is not justified and shouldn’t be allowed as its killing a human being

What threat to her life, that is not present in any pregnancy she does not wish to continue? Please explain.

I think it's pretty obvious we're never going to get a coherent answer on that point.

[Katganistan]

What threat to her life, that is not present in any pregnancy she does not wish to continue? Please explain.

I think it's pretty obvious we're never going to get a coherent answer on that point.

Mostly because there is no answer other than it being a double standard.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

I know. I find the fact that others are genuinely suggesting them to be really ethically fukt, personally.

You think developing technologies to save premature babies who would otherwise die is "really ethically fukt"?

I think that those contemplating forcing women to undergo what is likely very invasive surgery to remove a fetus that she was forced to carry for long enough for this procedure to take place, then to continue developing it at high cost to either taxpayers or the unwilling "mother" is ethically fukt, yes. Especially considering that the science behind it means that they would have to purposefully experiment with the hormones, nutrients, environment, etc. and that would likely mean that at least some of the earliest babies "born" from those machines will suffer complications that may last their entire lives.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

I think it's pretty obvious we're never going to get a coherent answer on that point.

Mostly because there is no answer other than it being a double standard.

"Rape and invest" exceptions are typically very revealing to the mentality of the anti-choice movement.

[Senkaku]

You think developing technologies to save premature babies who would otherwise die is "really ethically fukt"?

I think that those contemplating forcing women to undergo what is likely very invasive surgery to remove a fetus that she was forced to carry for long enough for this procedure to take place, then to continue developing it at high cost to either taxpayers or the unwilling "mother" is ethically fukt, yes. Especially considering that the science behind it means that they would have to purposefully experiment with the hormones, nutrients, environment, etc. and that would likely mean that at least some of the earliest babies "born" from those machines will suffer complications that may last their entire lives.

Every transformative technology can be misused, and most of them have development costs that are more profound than simple dollar figures. Doesn't mean they aren't worth pursuing. Artificial wombs would save countless lives, and as an added bonus, make it possible for us to colonize other star systems, if we ever get around to that. You have a problem with a proposed use of the technology, not the technology itself, and you shouldn't confuse the two. I'm against nuclear bombs being dropped on cities; I'm not against all uses of nuclear energy.

[The Alma Mater]

Well, it's kind of hard to ignore the high levels of support for such things as the death penalty, lack of free healthcare and opposition to public services to help parents struggling finically as being signs of people truly concerned for the well being of their fellow humans.

I agree, but 1) that doesn't represent the entirety of the pro-life movement (the Catholic Church is the backbone of the pro-life movement is is extremely pro-social services and has recently made it illicit for members to support the death penalty), and 2) most people, pro-life people included, are extremely inconsistent in the application of their ideology because most people don't have an ideology so much as they have a loose collection of policies they support.

And point 2 is indeed the focal point right now.
So, what is the underlying reason to make abortion the hill to die on, and not e.g. compulsory organ/blood donation, compulsory donations to UNICEF, compulsory community service etc ?

That you cannot solve everything - sad, but true. Being inconsistent ? Well, you are human. But why is limiting the rights of women so that the unborn may live the one you get passionate about ?

[Kowani]

5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to consider whether Texas should be allowed to ban evacuation and dilation, the safest and most common method of abortion used later in pregnancy.

[Punished UMN]

I agree, but 1) that doesn't represent the entirety of the pro-life movement (the Catholic Church is the backbone of the pro-life movement is is extremely pro-social services and has recently made it illicit for members to support the death penalty), and 2) most people, pro-life people included, are extremely inconsistent in the application of their ideology because most people don't have an ideology so much as they have a loose collection of policies they support.

And point 2 is indeed the focal point right now.
So, what is the underlying reason to make abortion the hill to die on, and not e.g. compulsory organ/blood donation, compulsory donations to UNICEF, compulsory community service etc ?

That you cannot solve everything - sad, but true. Being inconsistent ? Well, you are human. But why is limiting the rights of women so that the unborn may live the one you get passionate about ?

For me, because I believe people have a moral duty to care for the fate of their offspring. That said, I do believe there should be compulsory community service.

[Necroghastia]

And point 2 is indeed the focal point right now.
So, what is the underlying reason to make abortion the hill to die on, and not e.g. compulsory organ/blood donation, compulsory donations to UNICEF, compulsory community service etc ?

That you cannot solve everything - sad, but true. Being inconsistent ? Well, you are human. But why is limiting the rights of women so that the unborn may live the one you get passionate about ?

For me, because I believe people have a moral duty to care for the fate of their offspring.

And not having a child when one cannot properly support them is not caring for the fate of their offspring?

[The Alma Mater]

And point 2 is indeed the focal point right now.
So, what is the underlying reason to make abortion the hill to die on, and not e.g. compulsory organ/blood donation, compulsory donations to UNICEF, compulsory community service etc ?

That you cannot solve everything - sad, but true. Being inconsistent ? Well, you are human. But why is limiting the rights of women so that the unborn may live the one you get passionate about ?

For me, because I believe people have a moral duty to care for the fate of their offspring. That said, I do believe there should be compulsory community service.

So do you actually care about said offspring, or is "the duty" your motive ?

[Dogmeat]

Mostly because there is no answer other than it being a double standard.

"Rape and invest" exceptions are typically very revealing to the mentality of the anti-choice movement.

"Rape and invest" seems like it should be on a placard in Wall Street somewhere.

[The Free Joy State]

"Rape and invest" exceptions are typically very revealing to the mentality of the anti-choice movement.

"Rape and invest" seems like it should be on a placard in Wall Street somewhere.

I heard it was going to be the subtitle of a GTA game set in the world of ruthless high finance. But traditional GTA players didn't like the concept, as it was designed to be impossible to get police officers to pursue them.

And point 2 is indeed the focal point right now.
So, what is the underlying reason to make abortion the hill to die on, and not e.g. compulsory organ/blood donation, compulsory donations to UNICEF, compulsory community service etc ?

That you cannot solve everything - sad, but true. Being inconsistent ? Well, you are human. But why is limiting the rights of women so that the unborn may live the one you get passionate about ?

For me, because I believe people have a moral duty to care for the fate of their offspring. That said, I do believe there should be compulsory community service.

Well, you get marks for consistency. But, for me, if a woman knows (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that she will be unable to care for her offspring -- and knows giving birth to it would mean leaving it in oversubscribed foster care, where more than 23,000 children (US figures) age out every year and 7 in 10 girls who age out will be pregnant before 21, 50% of children who age out will develop a substance abuse problem, 60% of boys end up convicted of a crime, and only 3% of foster kids will ever get a college degree (though 70% would like to) -- having an abortion can be caring about the fate of your offspring.