Yeah doing the right thing isn't always easy.
Your life must be very easy.
Advertisement
by Necroghastia » Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:23 pm
by Sundiata » Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:24 pm
by Sundiata » Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:27 pm
Necroghastia wrote:Sundiata wrote:No, that's less easy.
...Don't y'all make a point of trying to communicate with God on a regular basis? Isn't getting his omnipresent ear the whole conceit of prayer? What makes it less easy than trying to deal with getting in touch with the various politicians and bureaucrats in charge of state justice systems?
by The Free Joy State » Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:53 am
Sundiata wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:The word you're describing is "hubris".
Courage involves actually making a decision. Women who choose abortion, tearing their own heart out, because they can't bring a child in the world to suffer, show courage.
Women who reject the option of abortion show courage because they choose life against all odds.
American Legionaries wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:
So you don't have a problem with removing the fetus, you just have a problem with the "intent to kill" the fetus. So instead of doing a safe abortion you want to do a completely unnecessary medical procedure that permanently takes part of the women's body away.
I'm sorry but no. You are just adding extra steps to dodge your own morality of "intent." I mean if someone has this procedure done when their intent is to get rid of the pregnancy then doesn't that invalidate the whole process?
Meaning what?
Women are permitted to have an abortion, in which instance they're indicted on homicide charges, and must prove an imminent, otherwise unavoidable risk of death or great bodily harm to absolve them of their actions.
Sundiata wrote:The violation is occurring to the unborn because their right to life is being curtailed. The compromise is not killing.The New California Republic wrote:No. The violation is occurring to the woman in this instance, so no, there is a violation of her bodily sovereignty so her right is being curtailed.
by Page » Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:01 am
by The Free Joy State » Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:16 am
Godular wrote:American Pere Housh wrote:In my opinion, the question of whether or not abortions should be legal or illegal should be left up to the states. Overturning Roe Vs. Wade will not automatically ban abortion so pro choice people need to stop panicking about it.
Women who live in those states that have the bans all prepped and ready have a whole lot to freak out over.
by American Legionaries » Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:23 am
The Free Joy State wrote:Godular wrote:
Women who live in those states that have the bans all prepped and ready have a whole lot to freak out over.
Especially women in the southern United States where bans are likely to be concentrated.
Women with money would be able to do what they used to do before Roe v. Wade, and fly to somewhere with better laws to get the procedure they need. As always, it would be the poorest women -- those in abusive relationships, the girls whose schools gave them abstinence only "sex education", rape victims, those in financial crisis who can't afford a/another child -- who would be unable to access safe help.
Abortion bans never stop abortions. Just safe abortions.Sundiata wrote:As I understand, not permanently if it can be helped but as a matter of ethical procedure.
I think you were searching for an antonym.
by The Free Joy State » Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:26 am
American Legionaries wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:Especially women in the southern United States where bans are likely to be concentrated.
Women with money would be able to do what they used to do before Roe v. Wade, and fly to somewhere with better laws to get the procedure they need. As always, it would be the poorest women -- those in abusive relationships, the girls whose schools gave them abstinence only "sex education", rape victims, those in financial crisis who can't afford a/another child -- who would be unable to access safe help.
Abortion bans never stop abortions. Just safe abortions.
I think you were searching for an antonym.
Criminalization of abortion will stop some abortions.
by The Alma Mater » Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:28 am
American Legionaries wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:Especially women in the southern United States where bans are likely to be concentrated.
Women with money would be able to do what they used to do before Roe v. Wade, and fly to somewhere with better laws to get the procedure they need. As always, it would be the poorest women -- those in abusive relationships, the girls whose schools gave them abstinence only "sex education", rape victims, those in financial crisis who can't afford a/another child -- who would be unable to access safe help.
Abortion bans never stop abortions. Just safe abortions.
I think you were searching for an antonym.
Criminalization of abortion will stop some abortions.
by The Free Joy State » Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:31 am
by American Legionaries » Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:32 am
The Free Joy State wrote:American Legionaries wrote:
Criminalization of abortion will stop some abortions.
Nope. It doesn't. And I have stats for that.
According to The Lancet, in the 2015-2019 figures, where they are broadly legal (excluding China and India) and completely prohibited the figures are identical: 40 abortions per 1000 women.
In fact, between their last figures, the rate of abortions fell where broadly legal by 43% and rose where prohibited by 11%.
by Esternial » Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:33 am
Sundiata wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:The word you're describing is "hubris".
Courage involves actually making a decision. Women who choose abortion, tearing their own heart out, because they can't bring a child in the world to suffer, show courage.
Women who reject the option of abortion show courage because they choose life against all odds.
by Page » Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:36 am
American Legionaries wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:Nope. It doesn't. And I have stats for that.
According to The Lancet, in the 2015-2019 figures, where they are broadly legal (excluding China and India) and completely prohibited the figures are identical: 40 abortions per 1000 women.
In fact, between their last figures, the rate of abortions fell where broadly legal by 43% and rose where prohibited by 11%.
None of this indicates a U.S. prohibition would be ineffective. Only that foreign prohibitions are ineffective.
by Page » Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:38 am
Esternial wrote:Sundiata wrote:Women who reject the option of abortion show courage because they choose life against all odds.
Whether courage is involved or not is entirely circumstantial.
A woman being pressured to have an abortion and choosing to keep the baby is courageous.
A woman being pressured to keep the baby and choosing to have an abortion because valid reasons is courageous.
by The Free Joy State » Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:46 am
American Legionaries wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:Nope. It doesn't. And I have stats for that.
According to The Lancet, in the 2015-2019 figures, where they are broadly legal (excluding China and India) and completely prohibited the figures are identical: 40 abortions per 1000 women.
In fact, between their last figures, the rate of abortions fell where broadly legal by 43% and rose where prohibited by 11%.
None of this indicates a U.S. prohibition would be ineffective. Only that foreign prohibitions are ineffective.
by American Legionaries » Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:48 am
by The Free Joy State » Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:50 am
Esternial wrote:Sundiata wrote:Women who reject the option of abortion show courage because they choose life against all odds.
Whether courage is involved or not is entirely circumstantial.
A woman being pressured to have an abortion and choosing to keep the baby is courageous.
A woman being pressured to keep the baby and choosing to have an abortion because valid reasons is courageous.
by Vassenor » Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:08 am
The Free Joy State wrote:Sundiata wrote:The violation is occurring to the unborn because their right to life is being curtailed. The compromise is not killing.
Your approach is not a compromise. Your approach is to force a woman who was impregnated to remain pregnant, regardless of her feelings, and to render her infertile should she have a complication. Your approach is to stamp on a woman's bodily autonomy -- force her to submit to unnecessary and risky surgery -- and transform her into an incubator and call it "compassion".
by Esalia » Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:08 am
Sundiata wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:
Ok, how do you have the mother not get an abortion and not have to give birth?San Lumen wrote:
What do you suggest be done?
Without intending to kill the fetus, cut the portion of the organ where implantation occurs. Commonly the fallopian tubes. Unfortunately the unborn child will die but we didn't directly intend to kill them.
Sundiata wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:
I mean your making everything worse just so that you can try and dodge "intent" to "kill" the fetus. Even though the procedure you are proposing would still result when people "intend" to "kill" the fetus.
Its a rather silly attempt to avoid an arbitrary moral rule without any questioning of why.
For me, it's the difference between evil and morally neutral. Intent matters. It's bad that the unborn child dies but we shouldn't intend to kill them, that intention would be evil regardless of if the mother fortunately lives and the unborn child unfortunately dies.
American Pere Housh wrote:In my opinion, the question of whether or not abortions should be legal or illegal should be left up to the states. Overturning Roe Vs. Wade will not automatically ban abortion so pro choice people need to stop panicking about it.
by The Alma Mater » Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:52 am
by The Blaatschapen » Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:01 am
The Alma Mater wrote:Sundiata wrote:As I understand, not permanently if it can be helped but as a matter of ethical procedure.
Sterilising the man is far more efficient. Easier and a man can theoretically impregnate hundreds of women per.year, while women have a limited number of possible pregnancies.
by Imperial Old Mexico » Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:14 am
Vassenor wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:Your approach is not a compromise. Your approach is to force a woman who was impregnated to remain pregnant, regardless of her feelings, and to render her infertile should she have a complication. Your approach is to stamp on a woman's bodily autonomy -- force her to submit to unnecessary and risky surgery -- and transform her into an incubator and call it "compassion".
Why is the conservative definiton of compromise always "just do whatever I want anyway"?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Emotional Support Crocodile, Makko Oko, Osmauri, Outer Bratorke, Paddy O Fernature, The Apollonian Systems, The Black Forrest, Tlaceceyaya, Turenia, Umeria, Valrifall
Advertisement