Briareos H on 11/10/2022 at 06:35
Can we be a bit practical instead of founding everything on great theoretical principles? Allowing open sale of organs will drive the the gap in healthcare even wider, normalizing low prices and worse health for poor people (see Iran). I know this is a hard concept to grasp for Americans but the rich becoming richer and healthier and the poor becoming poorer and sicker is not a desirable state for a durable country. Abortion is the same, an aborted fetus is less damaging both for the people involved and for society than forced parenthood or the increased risk for emotional and behavioural problems in adopted children.
Only seeing this as a bodily autonomy issue is missing the point.
Dia on 11/10/2022 at 14:53
Quote Posted by Briareos H
Abortion is the same, an aborted fetus is less damaging both for the people involved and for society than forced parenthood or the increased risk for emotional and behavioural problems in adopted children.
Only seeing this as a bodily autonomy issue is missing the point.
Excellent point!! The foster care system in this country was started in order to put an end to over-crowded orphanages where children were neglected and abused. Guess what? Our foster care system is now not only overwhelmed but broken, with foster parents taking in more unwanted children than they can logically and financially handle and in doing so, ending up neglecting and even abusing those children. The sudden rise in unwanted babies about to be born in those reprehensible red states is going to over-tax an already over-taxed system; what happens to those unwanted babies then?? Adoption is not only seriously expensive, but who wants to adopt a child with deformities, disabilities or behavioral issues?? It sounds harsh, but a child with physical and/or mental issues is expensive and requires the utmost patience and devotion; not a lot of people qualify or even want to in that regard. The plain fact is that there aren't enough people in this country willing to adopt in the first place, let alone enough who have the finances to do so. So then what? Do we re-open the orphanages?
The Republicans haven't thought this through, obviously; it's already been proven that they are using non-sentient, non-viable zygotes, embryos or early-term fetuses as a political ploy to garner more votes among the pro-forced birth crowd; they don't have a solution for what's about to happen, nor do they care to. It's all about votes and exerting more control over women in order to salve their fragile male egos. Forcing women to carry unwanted fetuses is slavery, period, but the Republicans don't care. I think we'll see a lot of unwanted babies being left on the front doorsteps of those misogynist Republicans in the near future. Let's see how they deal with harsh reality.
In the meantime, my heart breaks for all those women who will be forced into slavery by carrying and delivering an unwanted fetus. In my opinion, being forced to carry a fetus you didn't want in the first place causes the same devastating trauma as being raped. I plan to continue to contribute to those organizations now springing up that are designed to help women who find themselves in that situation. Misogynist Republicans and pro-forced birthers be damned all to Hell.
P.S. It should be noted that since the news was leaked at the beginning of this year that the SCOTUS intended to overturn Roe vs Wade, there's been a 70% increase in women registering to vote. I seriously doubt that the majority of those women intend to vote Republican.
Tocky on 11/10/2022 at 15:48
Quote Posted by Draxil
I read here all the time. And to be fair, I usually weigh in on gun control, too. And, to be fair it's indisputable scientific fact that the life of a human being begins at conception. All known life on earth can be taxonimcally categorized to the species--there is no known, uncategorized life form that I'm aware of. A zygote is indisputably homo sapiens. Science. "Personhood" is a philosophical concept, not scientific, and whether or not to value human life more than unbridled human autonomy is a matter of how you weigh values. So I disagree that the pro abortion position is the scientific position, because I disagree that science is in the business of promoting the destruction of any life.
Right. You also consider your right to play with guns of more value than human life. The development of human life begins at conception but, much as the frame of a car is not a car, so a zygote is not a human yet. You know this yet argue dishonestly. Then you claim moral highground though forcing a 13 year old rape victim to risk her life delivering. I know all that. No need to remind me. It's why I don't want to argue. You are dishonest and self-righteous just as nearly every Christian is these days.
RippedPhreak on 11/10/2022 at 21:28
The shitlibs on this board calling someone else "self-righteous" is off the charts ironic. :eek:
Pyrian on 11/10/2022 at 22:39
Do you even know what that phrase means? Virtually every "shitlib" position is directly grounded on the real effects on conscious people's lives. Many right-wing positions have to cite deities, unconscious cell clumps, long-disproven economic principles, cherry-picked data, and weird paranoid fantasies - if they bother citing anything at all.
Tocky on 12/10/2022 at 03:05
Quote Posted by RippedPhreak
The shitlibs on this board calling
someone else "self-righteous" is off the charts ironic. :eek:
This is another thing. Calling names like a ten year old is another reason to not argue. Make note of the things that piss you off enough to leave logic behind in favor of emotion and discard them. Reason is the only way to proceed. I'll admit I need to look in the mirror. I need to do it every day. But you do too. When I say self righteous I'm not saying so as a name calling. I mean it. You and all religion should reevaluate a harsh and strict interpretation of the bible. You should think more on what a benevolent God would do rather than what the scared and vengeful child you have found in the bible would do. And you should understand the quest of science, which is a simple understanding of observation, is a better and kinder way. It's not about control. It's about considering all instances. It's about putting yourself in someone else's shoes.
I know I have said things to trigger you but they were true things. Consider them.
Draxil on 12/10/2022 at 06:58
Quote Posted by Tocky
Right. You also consider your right to play with guns of more value than human life. The development of human life begins at conception but, much as the frame of a car is not a car, so a zygote is not a human yet. You know this yet argue dishonestly. Then you claim moral highground though forcing a 13 year old rape victim to risk her life delivering. I know all that. No need to remind me. It's why I don't want to argue. You are dishonest and self-righteous just as nearly every Christian is these days.
That's the second time you've said that, and I don't know where I've ever endorsed forcing a 13 year old rape victim to risk her life delivering--care to quote that for me? For someone that claims to follow science, you sure seem to believe a lot of half-baked pseudoscience ideas. A zygote is the beginning of human life, which you admit. Logically, that which possesses human life is human. Humans develop in stages, Tocky--zygote, embryo, fetus are the first stages. They're all human. Jump through whatever kind of twisted hoops in your head you need to to justify eliminating them, or be honest like Dia--they're human but they're not as important as the mother's autonomy, and up to the point of birth the mother should have the right to terminate them. I have a lot more respect for the honesty of Dia's and the Planned Parenthood's position--it is simply giving more value to the mother's autonomy than to the life of the child. PP stopped arguing that the unborn were just clumps of cells or not human a long time ago, by the way, because they realized it was a losing argument and the science was against them. Their arguments mirror Dia's, now. Yours are decades out of date.
For Briaeros and Dia, your argument, if I'm understanding it correctly, is that it's better to terminate a life than allow for the possibility of suffering later on in life, and if a child is going to being going up for adoption or into a foster home or may have a disability, it is much better that they should die before birth. That's fine, but what I honestly don't get is why stop at birth--what is it about exiting the womb and breathing air that is a magically changing moment that means their lives should be protected? If that newborn is going to be in foster care or put up for adoption, and be a strain on society and its resources, surely it would be better just to mix a few milligrams of succinycholine and 20 mEq of potassium in a syringe and ease the strain on our social services and prevent the misery the child is going to experience, right? Seriously--explain to me the logic and rationality of supporting abortion up to birth but not in infancy.
Starker on 12/10/2022 at 07:32
Who outside of Republican fantasies "supports" abortion up to birth? Strawman much?
lowenz on 12/10/2022 at 08:35
Quote Posted by Tocky
Reason is the only way to proceed.
You can synthesize the (far) right values system as "
I don't want to be put in the reason cage" and their "expressed love" for freedom is just that claim and nothing other. Really you can reduce the (far) right to "unconstrained by logic" will to be.
It's why they can ask for the
freedom to suppress freedom too as "perfectly genuine" and sincere request, no matter the obvious contradiction.
Briareos H on 12/10/2022 at 10:12
Quote:
your argument, if I'm understanding it correctly, is that it's better to terminate a life than allow for the possibility of suffering later on in life
It's better to do a surgical procedure that goes with the termination of a life on women who are already suffering and asking for relief, with low medical risks, than to perpetuate their distress, doubly so because not dealing with that distress is associated with an acute likelihood of further problems and decreased quality of life for society down the line.
Quote:
what is it about exiting the womb and breathing air that is a magically changing moment that means their lives should be protected?
I don't want to deal with moral theoretics and what-ifs. I'll leave that to experts, if millenia of evolution had given us a society where we would have a straightforward, well-accepted, low-impact process for killing infants (lol) my answer might be different but until then the answer is obvious. If a clinic started killing infants today, this would have far-reaching traumatic consequences on society. Other people are probably better than me at explaining why, but the difference with abortion is factual.
I just like it the way it is (where abortion is freely accessible), because I see more demonstrable good than bad coming out of it, and because it works.