1. #6561
    Banned cubby's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    35,050
    (emphasis added by myself)

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    We don't have a demilitarized zone to interrogate and ridicule the basest forms of propaganda and hysterical disinformation like you brought up here. First topic People of Praise and ACB, then we'll move on to how Ketanji Brown Jackson can't figure out what a woman is, how the murder of Christians by a transgender person means trans people are the real victims, or Joe Biden erasing his seventh grandchild in every nod to his grandchildren. This is all grist to the lowest culture warrior's mill. I see and acknowledge the people that bathe in that stuff, but unless you can summon literally Matt Walsh here to form your debating equal, you're out of luck. Those conversations are pointless.
    ACB was literally a Handmaid, her literal title during some of her time in her religious affiliation. She was part of, and in some respects held a leadership role in, a religious organization who believe that women are subservient to men.

    The fact that you don't understand how her affiliation impacts her position on SCOTUS is demonstrative of your inability to understand even the most basic issues surrounding their deliberations, and those impacts on society.

    The fact that you think discussing reality is "pointless" merely demonstrates your inability to grasp sincere public discourse on important topics.

    The fact that we all already know that you'll do your usual handwave and whataboutism when faced with a reality check that contradicts your world is because you've always been that predictable.

    When you're ready to discuss reality, you can come back to the table. Until then, we'll relax and enjoy your feeble attempts at discourse, all the while knowing that YOU know you're lying.
    Last edited by cubby; 2023-05-08 at 02:13 AM.

  2. #6562
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post

    People have afforded themselves the privilege of declaring the pro-life position is not actually pro-life. Therefore, as a reminder to the logic of this, I have chosen to sometimes call the pro-choice side as pro-aborts. Certainly I've seen ample evidence of people here favoring legal abortion throughout every week of the pregnancy, so the epithet has some descriptive power.

    Ye, and we should also call pro-gun people pro-murder according to this spectacular brand of logic.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  3. #6563
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,078
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    People have afforded themselves the privilege of declaring the pro-life position is not actually pro-life. Therefore, as a reminder to the logic of this, I have chosen to sometimes call the pro-choice side as pro-aborts.
    I'll repeat this.
    People look at this stance and say no, because so many who hold a "pro-life" stance don't support anything that'd support the life of a child post birth.
    9-months of parental leave with garantueed getting job back? No
    A child support grant given to every child? No
    Free birth. The fact that giving birth costs thousands of dollars and that insurance doesn't cover it all by default? Is just disgusting and to be "pro-life" those who hold said positions should act on at least the three things I just mentioned first.

    That's why that term gets attacked. It's extremely specifically chosen to be manipulative while not being true outside.

    Meanwhile Pro-choice, reffering to "A Womans Right to Choose" applies to most cases the side who holds that have.
    - Lars

  4. #6564
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    If you want to debate somebody that demands an already-dead unborn baby must be carried to term, look elsewhere. This is just a strawman you're very committed to, and the strength of your commitment doesn't make it a part of somebody else's ideology.
    just FYI:
    A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
    colloquially, straw man is also used to reference when arguing against a scenario that doesn't actually exist as if it were the scenario under discussion.

    republican absolutely have, and are currently, making laws which requires women to carry dead fetuses to term.
    that is not a strawman. that is actually happening. that is the providence of the political body that you endorse.

    People have afforded themselves the privilege of declaring the pro-life position is not actually pro-life.
    that's neither privilege nor declaration, that's simply observation.

    for my 2 cents on the convo i do agree with you though, that reasonable limits should be placed on abortion in consideration for human life and viability. i fully support putting rational restrictions on abortion.
    i think that the 45th or 46th trimester should be a number we can all agree on being fair and reasonable.
    Last edited by Malkiah; 2023-05-08 at 12:11 PM.

  5. #6565
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Democrats have refused to endorse any restrictions on late term abortions for some time now. I'm not going to apologize for noticing that.
    Why be wrong on purpose?

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  6. #6566
    The Lightbringer tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    3,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyonai View Post
    Except none of the people pushing abortion bans actually want to put those exemptions into law, or make the laws so poorly worded that doctors can't perform these procedures until the very moment the mother's life is in danger which an often be too late. And in that case either of our opinions on the well-being of the fetus doesn't really matter, because in this instances the kid's doomed either because it's going to be born dead or kill its mother before they can be born.
    If you agree with me on some substantial points but have certain presumptions about inadequately tailored laws, then I really have nothing further to say.

    No real, actual person in this thread is arguing that a mother has the right to terminate a viable late-term pregnancy
    Arguing against any laws whatsoever guarantees that the mother has that legal right, and only needs to find a doctor that is willing to perform it. This point is the most basic of them all, and the most diligently avoided: if you support no restrictions whatsoever post-viability, then you're arguing for the legal right to abort post-viability.

    You do not here actually argue that the mother should not have the legal right to abort her child post-viability or late-term. I find that absence particularly damning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    Ye, and we should also call pro-gun people pro-murder according to this spectacular brand of logic.
    Abide by your opponent's self-description or invent your own, just don't parade around demanding your opponent respect yours while not respecting theirs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    I'll repeat this.
    Attack as you wish. I've given the existence of such attacks as reason enough to put in pro-aborts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Yes, the doctor should be given the leeway to determine when an abortion is necessary and when it isn't. These anti-abortion laws are screwing that decision-making up. You know who it's screwing up? The actual women that actually want children and don't want abortions but have to in order to save their own lives, save the child, or save the fetus from suffering a terrible death as soon as it's born.
    The baby is enough of a consideration post-viability that the doctor must determine that there is a fatal abortion defect, or the mother's life is threatened, and we can argue other circumstances involving the legal killing of a perfectly healthy baby for other reasons. Doctors have done that with post-viability bans in the past, and can do it now.

    You know who it's screwing up?
    It'll also impact women with less-than-justifiable reasons for abortion that should end up in adoption or state care. We could start with financial circumstances changing, withdrawal of relationship support, spousal pressure for an abortion, the death of a close relative, strain on the mental health from a difficult pregnancy. The only through-line I've seen is that in any case, the child deserves no protections, and should be legally able to be killed no matter what. Nobody actually wants laws to prevent it, but they tip-toe around the reasons why they don't want laws to prevent it.

    You totally neglect a potential sudden change, late in the pregnancy, of circumstances surrounding the mother's life, that might be of high but illegitimate concern for a period of days or weeks and lead to a very bad decision. The laws ought to protect and fight back against such impulses. This isn't all just done for the good of the healthy, developing baby. The mother gains by having laws force reconsideration of options beyond abortion.

    It's like you're arguing that doctors should not be able to remove a kidney from someone if the patient wants to(not out of necessity). Why would a law need to be created for something that doesn't happen?

    I'm not pro-abort, I'm pro-life AND pro-choice. Meaning - if I had to make a decision on a pregnancy, abortion wouldn't be my choice. Your mother? Your daughter? Your wife? None of my business. I'll mind mine, you mind yours.
    If it was just organ removal and not an early stage of an individual human, different than their mother, then things would be different. Abortion is pretty terminal for one person in the procedure. There's no form they can fill out at 18 to check "I wish I had never been born." That choice is made for them before they can make it themselves, and in my supported rules, should only be made in the most dire of circumstances and protected by law. This is another life, and if it was anything less than another life, then you'd have good footing to argue none of your business.

    The law is full of examples where "I'll mind mine, you mind yours" doesn't hold sway. "Spousal abuse? Don't make it illegal, just personally choose not to abuse your spouse, it's none of your business! Maternal infanticide? It's not your baby, or your wife's, or your daughter's. Why are you supporting laws that criminalize it if it's none of your business?

    I have been on record stating that abortion "on demand" should not be allowed past viability, which should be determined by the doctor. Not lawmakers. I bet if you took a survey of every doctor that performs abortions, you'd find 0 state that they've performed an abortion AFTER viability, assuming no danger to the life of the mother or fetus.

    Either way, the rabid pro-lifers need to understand what abortion is honestly, and when it usually happens, before they start mouthing off about policy.
    How are you going to not allow it, if not by law? "It should not be allowed" is all well and good if you're speaking of your child in your own home with your authority, but it looks awfully like "It should be allowed" if you cannot verbally support actual ill consequences to the act being performed. Until you're able to back it with something concrete, it also looks a lot like "I don't like that it might happen and hope it does not."

    We have enough examples here of people innocently proposing that the mother's motives should never be questioned, since they're presumed ironclad. Am I to presume that nobody ideologically like them becomes doctors and presumes the mother's good motives cannot be questioned? If you need an example of a doctor delivering live babies in the third trimester to kill them after delivery, I can supply it. And given the existence of such unethical doctors, how can anyone presume their cousins will not question a woman's decision to abort under any circumstance? These argue against mere presumption and towards laws.

    I'll restate it another way. The core questions to your argument are: "Should not be allowed by whom?" and "What should be done to violators" and "How are you going to know if and when it happens?" All three argue for some kind of state involvement.
    Last edited by tehdang; 2023-05-08 at 02:35 PM.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  7. #6567
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,982
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Abide by your opponent's self-description or invent your own, just don't parade around demanding your opponent respect yours while not respecting theirs.
    The "disrespect" is coming from those who take a position rooted exclusively in misogyny and Christian fascism and describe that position as "pro-life" even though they do not support childbearing or raising in any other meaningful respect.

    They're opening with a straight lie to everyone else's face, about their motives and goals.

    That disrespect is what garners them the negative response to that lie.

    If it was just organ removal and not an early stage of an individual human, different than their mother, then things would be different. Abortion is pretty terminal for one person in the procedure. There's no form they can fill out at 18 to check "I wish I had never been born." That choice is made for them before they can make it themselves, and in my supported rules, should only be made in the most dire of circumstances and protected by law. This is another life, and if it was anything less than another life, then you'd have good footing to argue none of your business.
    And this is a religious view, not an opinion based on secular reality. Which is fine, if you're using that to make your own choices for yourself, but it's religious fascism to try and force those religious views on others, and a breach of their religious freedoms.

    The very idea that the fetus is "another life" is fundamentally about the possession of a soul, not about whether tissue happens to be living tissue or not. This is also why you take pains to say it's "different than their mother"; possessing a separate soul.

    You can tell yourself that story if it makes you feel better. You do not get to freely attack other people's religious freedoms to try and force that story upon them, not without getting pushback for your unjustifiable hatred of others.


    The law is full of examples where "I'll mind mine, you mind yours" doesn't hold sway. "Spousal abuse? Don't make it illegal, just personally choose not to abuse your spouse, it's none of your business! Maternal infanticide? It's not your baby, or your wife's, or your daughter's. Why are you supporting laws that criminalize it if it's none of your business?
    Both those issues are secularly recognizeable as crimes unto themselves. Abortion is not. Every argument against abortion boils down to a religious view. You're just upset you can't force everyone to abide by your religious views.

    We have enough examples here of people innocently proposing that the mother's motives should never be questioned, since they're presumed ironclad. Am I to presume that nobody ideologically like them becomes doctors and presumes the mother's good motives cannot be questioned? If you need an example of a doctor delivering live babies in the third trimester to kill them after delivery, I can supply it. And given the existence of such unethical doctors, how can anyone presume their cousins will not question a woman's decision to abort under any circumstance? These argue against mere presumption and towards laws.
    Not "ironclad", just 100% irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the woman's motive for wanting an abortion is "this kid's gonna ruin my waistline and I want to wear that cute midriff-exposing dress to my sister's trailer park wedding next month". You're just expressing your personal misogyny, again.
    Last edited by Endus; 2023-05-08 at 03:13 PM.


  8. #6568
    Reforged Gone Wrong The Stormbringer's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Premium
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ...location, location!
    Posts
    15,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    It's pretty fucking simple, tehdang.

    If the child is viable and the pregnancy is doing fine, it should be illegal to have an abortion when the fetus is viable outside the womb.
    If the child is not viable or the pregnancy is in danger, abortion is legal.
    Science and doctors inside that specific profession should be the ones to answer what "viable" means. NOT politicians and their lobbyists.

    Have our representatives meet with the AMA, or some such group where they can get valuable information from abortion doctors. Stop vilifying them and treat them like other doctors. And then form your laws around that. Women have been doing things to end their pregnancies since civilization began. You may not like the act, but it's human nature at this point. Abortion is gonna happen no matter how many laws we write, I'd rather it be done safely, within what I think are good aspects to start writing an abortion law, listed above.
    Sounds about right to me. Very well said, Chonogo.

  9. #6569
    It's honestly very fun to read how these laws on the books now that are written, passed, and signed by Republicans that keep resulting in women needlessly suffering and risking death due to unviable pregnancies that need to be aborted are actually good laws and how it's not unthinkable that Republicans see these stories repeatedly and take no action to limit this suffering.

    At least according to some people.

  10. #6570
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    I found that what I typed out for what I feel are sane abortion laws, is exactly what pro-choice people have always felt. But because we choose to let the decision of abortion come between the doctor and the patient, we pro-choicers almost feel like there shouldn't be an abortion "law" per se, but more a set of guidelines that the profession follows, which is already being followed except where states start restricting it, and putting these doctors into a situation where they can choose to help the patient, or avoid going to prison for a very long time. Understandably, when a law is vague, doctors tend to avoid the latter.
    Sadly even legal protection seems to not be enough. Even before Roe vs Wade was removed, harassment of abortion providers, both organizations and individuals, significantly reduced access to abortion in many areas.

  11. #6571
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,826
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    If you agree with me on some substantial points but have certain presumptions about inadequately tailored laws, then I really have nothing further to say.
    I'm not making presumptions about shit, it's been clearly documented how either poorly worded or strictly worded laws have kept doctor's hands tied when it comes to offering medically necessary abortions. And all that aside I don't agree with you on anything but the bare minimum, which is 'Mothers shouldn't need to suffer needless and preventable medical complications. It's like you're trying to gotcha me for agreeing that Orphanages shouldn't be on fire or that the last season of Game of Thrones sucked.

    Arguing against any laws whatsoever guarantees that the mother has that legal right, and only needs to find a doctor that is willing to perform it. This point is the most basic of them all, and the most diligently avoided: if you support no restrictions whatsoever post-viability, then you're arguing for the legal right to abort post-viability.

    You do not here actually argue that the mother should not have the legal right to abort her child post-viability or late-term. I find that absence particularly damning.
    And speaking of making presumptions about people; I'm not arguing for -no- regulation, I'm arguing that the current regulations offered by Republicans are just absolutely terrible because of the reasons stated above. They're either too stupid to make laws folks can clearly understand or so malicious that the bad wording is by design so they can effectively ban the procedure.

    But, hey, if they wanna keep pushing on this losing culture war issue then by all means.

  12. #6572
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Abide by your opponent's self-description or invent your own, just don't parade around demanding your opponent respect yours while not respecting theirs.
    You can't claim to be for women's rights then turn around and demand that all women should stay home and be homemakers, just like you can't claim to be pro-life then turn around and abandon the fetus after it's become a baby.

  13. #6573
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post

    Abide by your opponent's self-description or invent your own, just don't parade around demanding your opponent respect yours while not respecting theirs.
    Indeed, and acting like a child because some other people are is sure to make you look like someone to be taken seriously.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  14. #6574
    Brewmaster Slirith's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Gamindustri
    Posts
    1,413
    Wonder if Republicunts realize their laws against women mirror certain countries they loathe.

  15. #6575
    Ohio’s proposed constitutional amendment to increase the threshold to amend the state constitution from 51% to 60% is facing a Wednesday deadline for it to be included on the August special ballot. The article below described the whole process succinctly.

    Deadline looming for Ohio House to pass constitutional amendment threshold, allow August election

    Unless it is on the August ballot and pass with 51%, the Ohio’s abortion and gerrymandering amendments to be voted in November will very likely pass. Multiple polls show that majority of Ohio’s voters are in favor of the abortion and gerrymandering amendments. The last poll which includes 9,000 participants showed that 59% of Ohio voters are for the abortion right amendment which will enshrine the right to abortion in the state’s constitution.

    Note: If the abortion amendment pass, abortion will be legal in Ohio up to 20 weeks.
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2023-05-09 at 07:02 PM.

  16. #6576
    The Lightbringer tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    3,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Can. Do they?

    I'm sure it's also legal for the doctor to tell the patient they're a worthless piece of shit for aborting a fetus. Should we have a law preventing that too?

    What kind of people do you think abortion doctors are? I'm sure they're bogeyman for rabid anti-abortion folks. But reality will tell us they're just like most other doctors, ethical and care about their patients' wellbeing.
    Doctors can generally say what they want, it's what they do that I want the law more concerned with. The doctor can talk up some surgery or treatment (within reason), but be mandated by law to obtain the patient's consent to undergo it first.

    I'm not neglecting the situation in which a woman during pregnancy might change her mind. I'm sure there are plenty of women like that. However, you're neglecting the situation where the doctor can refuse the abortion. If the fetus is viable, and the mother isn't harmed by it, why would a doctor abort a viable child?
    You've seen how many people here advocate a stance that the mother's motives must not be questioned, because they're presumed to be automatically the best reasons for abortion. I think it's likely enough to exist doctors that also presume the mere fact that the mother is asking for an abortion, despite the advanced term of pregnancy, means she's an appropriate candidate.

    The opposite presumption is far more flimsy. Every doctor, every abortion, both now and into the future, are only performed for universally non-objectionable reasons and thus should not be made the rule by law.

    Maternal infanticide? Seriously? Maybe stop imagining every abortion is done that kills a fully formed child ready to enter the world. "Late-term abortions" are the exception, not the rule. And they're always because the mother's life is in danger, or the fetus is non-viable, or both.

    As has been stated ad nauseum, abortions in the first trimester is not maternal infanticide. If you're gonna equate third trimester abortions the same as first trimester, then that's a spiritual/religious barrier you've put up that I don't have the patience to argue with.
    It reveals the logical flaws behind "Surely this would never happen, so it shouldn't be illegal." It isn't actually a good argument, and people innocently believing it should be confronted with the contradictions behind it.

    It's pretty fucking simple, tehdang.

    If the child is viable and the pregnancy is doing fine, it should be illegal to have an abortion when the fetus is viable outside the womb.
    Ok. It's pretty fucking simple, Chonogo. No prominent Democratic politician has made this argument and always deflects to rhetoric surrounding "mother and doctor." The majority of posters here that quote-reply me disagree that "it should be illegal" for reasons between "It doesn't happen, making it illegal is pointless" or "The woman and doctor are the only people that should have any impact on the decision" (and various shades of that always neglecting to consider the unborn child).

    You're talking to someone that thinks it should be obviously illegal, but has responded to a great number of people that think it obviously shouldn't be illegal. Tell them it's pretty fucking simple that they're wrong if you really want to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyonai View Post
    I'm not arguing for -no- regulation, I'm arguing that the current regulations offered by Republicans ...
    I've been arguing for regulations I want to see made into law, to great opposition on and off over several weeks. Maybe doing the same for yourself is a useful starting point. This is especially important if you favor a general prohibition with exceptions at any point in the pregnancy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Calfredd View Post
    You can't claim to be for women's rights then turn around and demand that all women should stay home and be homemakers, just like you can't claim to be pro-life then turn around and abandon the fetus after it's become a baby.
    You'll get nowhere building a political platform out of straw men. Go tour a local crisis pregnancy center, or look at state benefits for mothers with children, and then find me the pro-life supporter wants them to be ended.

    Make sure to have a guided tour or bring someone with you, because seeing all the post-pregnancy items, like diapers, toys, and baby clothing, may come as too much of a shock, given the rhetoric I'm seeing here.
    Last edited by tehdang; 2023-05-09 at 06:28 PM.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  17. #6577
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You'll get nowhere building a political platform out of straw men.
    Worked quite well for Republicans and you so far.

  18. #6578
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,982
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You've seen how many people here advocate a stance that the mother's motives must not be questioned, because they're presumed to be automatically the best reasons for abortion.
    Nope. The pregnant person's motives are utterly irrelevant to the question. I literally do not care why they want an abortion. Talking about their "motive" is just looking for an excuse to deny their rights to self-ownership. And I do not agree for one hot second that you have any argument that any motive should result in denying the abortion.

    It reveals the logical flaws behind "Surely this would never happen, so it shouldn't be illegal." It isn't actually a good argument, and people innocently believing it should be confronted with the contradictions behind it.
    What contradictions? You've raised none.

    You'll get nowhere building a political platform out of straw men. Go tour a local crisis pregnancy center, or look at state benefits for mothers with children, and then find me the pro-life supporter wants them to be ended.
    Finding pro-lifers who want to support them is far more challenging.

    Make sure to have a guided tour or bring someone with you, because seeing all the post-pregnancy items, like diapers, toys, and baby clothing, may come as too much of a shock, given the rhetoric I'm seeing here.
    Nobody on the pro-choice side is anti-child, you just don't have an argument so you're engaging in slander.


  19. #6579
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,826
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I've been arguing for regulations I want to see made into law, to great opposition on and off over several weeks. Maybe doing the same for yourself is a useful starting point. This is especially important if you favor a general prohibition with exceptions at any point in the pregnancy.
    I think I'll let the folks with more time and better debate skills pick up for me on this one, because either I've just been doing a bad job getting my point across or you have questionable reading comprehension.

    But to be explicitly clear; I don't want any sort of prohibition on abortions for non-viable fetuses, because anything before a certain point isn't our business and anything after is usually done for specific medical purposes that I'm sure the women opting for them aren't making as a light decision. I'm not a doctor, nor a lawmaker, so I won't even begin to think I can draft a concrete piece of legislation myself in regards to all this, but my staunch opposition to Republican regulations is all about how they're written by people who do not care to know how exactly abortions and pregnancies work (clear misogynistic undertones about wanting women to 'live with the consequences of their promiscuity' aside), and seek to mete out outlandishly harsh punishments as a result. And thus get us stuck with morons who want to criminally investigate miscarriages or force women to carry medically nonviable or dead fetuses because they think the mother's arteries pumping blood through the fetus means it has an independent heartbeat.


    You'll get nowhere building a political platform out of straw men. Go tour a local crisis pregnancy center, or look at state benefits for mothers with children, and then find me the pro-life supporter wants them to be ended.

    Make sure to have a guided tour or bring someone with you, because seeing all the post-pregnancy items, like diapers, toys, and baby clothing, may come as too much of a shock, given the rhetoric I'm seeing here.
    Also these two sentences back to back are fucking hilarious.

  20. #6580
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyonai View Post
    I think I'll let the folks with more time and better debate skills pick up for me on this one, because either I've just been doing a bad job getting my point across or you have questionable reading comprehension.

    But to be explicitly clear; I don't want any sort of prohibition on abortions for non-viable fetuses, because anything before a certain point isn't our business and anything after is usually done for specific medical purposes that I'm sure the women opting for them aren't making as a light decision. I'm not a doctor, nor a lawmaker, so I won't even begin to think I can draft a concrete piece of legislation myself in regards to all this, but my staunch opposition to Republican regulations is all about how they're written by people who do not care to know how exactly abortions and pregnancies work (clear misogynistic undertones about wanting women to 'live with the consequences of their promiscuity' aside), and seek to mete out outlandishly harsh punishments as a result. And thus get us stuck with morons who want to criminally investigate miscarriages or force women to carry medically nonviable or dead fetuses because they think the mother's arteries pumping blood through the fetus means it has an independent heartbeat.




    Also these two sentences back to back are fucking hilarious.
    The thing that really makes me unable to take his arguments very seriously is that we're supposed to be so very concerned with late-term abortions. Let's set aside that an incredibly vast majority of them are done for medical purposes and believing otherwise requires us to suppose both the mother and doctor are commonly cartoonish villains out to kill babies for fun, perhaps to eat them for supper or something.

    Meanwhile, in actual reality, Republican positions seem to vary from 15 weeks at the most reasonable end (which I still disagree with but whatever) to 6 weeks or even complete ban except for the feel-good rape exception. That's when the pill isn't being attacked instead despite it being usually recommenced at the 10 week mark. Also setting aside the sought-after ban of said pill would be nationwide despite a lot of people, SCOTUS included, assuring us this is all about state's rights.

    So the actual debate in the public sphere isn't about late-terms at all. It's about how early in the pre-viability stage the procedure must be banned. Obviously everyone saw it coming, because the various lobbies and social groups that form the backbone of the anti-abortion movement in America aren't merely concerned about the nitty grittys of the procedure during the later stages of pregnancy. They abhor it as murder and want to see it banned, even if I'd argue such a move would be about as productive as the War on Drugs and just cause women to seek the procedure from far less reliable sources than doctors or reputable medication.

    A lot of arguments must be set aside and a lot of very debatable things must be taken to be true for his position to resonate with anyone who isn't resolutely anti-abortion. The idea that because the Democrats don't have a perfect answer to these concerns about late-term abortions, thus it's fine if the Republicans do whatever up to and included banning it or being so near as to be undistinguishable, isn't something to be taken very seriously. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, if one would pardon the expression.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •