What overturning Roe v. Wade could mean for birth control access, maternal care - by Dia
BritKnee on 12/11/2022 at 20:31
Quote Posted by june gloom
This sounds an awful lot like support for eugenics despite your attempting to distance yourself from it. At the very least, depending on how you define "idiots" your argument ranges from classist to ableist.
Just so we're clear, you're not just a sock of Draxil's that he can point to and claim this is what his opponents actually want, yes?
What? No I'm not Draxil. I'm not even American.
And again let me reiterate, I am not spouting my opinion. I simply brought something up because this board is 8 pages and 7 months of the same argument... why not bring something new into the mix :erg:
My own opinion airs on the side of VHEMT (Voluntary Human Extinction Movement) however me being gay means I can't do much for or against that movement anyway.
(Edit: Now if you are wondering why my account is new. I wasn't even alive when yours was created, sure this devalues my opinions to being worthless but that doesn't matter much online anyway.)
Nicker on 13/11/2022 at 02:59
I have never really detected sustained ageism on Com Chat. What devalues an opinion more than generational bias, is passive-aggressive pseudo-victimhood. IMHO.
Humans are too adaptive to be exterminated but our model of constant economic growth, tied to increased population (demand/markets), does not work in a finite ecosystem. Seven plus billion of us is too much to ask of the planet.
BritKnee on 13/11/2022 at 19:10
Quote Posted by Nicker
I have never really detected sustained ageism on Com Chat. What devalues an opinion more than generational bias, is passive-aggressive pseudo-victimhood. IMHO.
Humans are too adaptive to be exterminated but our model of constant economic growth, tied to increased population (demand/markets), does not work in a finite ecosystem. Seven plus billion of us is too much to ask of the planet.
All I know is that most researchers believe that by 2050 the global population will plummet. I don't know by what percentage, and I don't know where in particular (probably China).
This just reminds me of something George Carlin said about environmentalists. That they only care about the planet because they are on it, because the planet is fine, it'll survive anything... we wont.
Cipheron on 14/11/2022 at 01:25
Quote Posted by june gloom
This sounds an awful lot like support for eugenics despite your attempting to distance yourself from it. At the very least, depending on how you define "idiots" your argument ranges from classist to ableist.
I thought at first you might be over-reacting to someone who was just "notice how dumb/uneducated people have lots of kids" ...
But then read back up the posts and saw that they floated the idea of "enforced abortions" which is all kinds of messed up. Fundamentally, someone would be needing to make the decision about who "needs" the abortion (not who wants one) so it's eugenics by definition. Even if, what I think this is saying, is to enforce a 100% abortion rate, then only allow people to have children if they pass some kind of test.
If that's the case however they should just enforce 100% vasectomy rate on men, thus preventing the need to have any abortions. There's basically no way you could justify forcing all women to constantly have abortions before you'd just make every guy get "the snip" by default. It's sort of a worry that these discussions often veer closer to forced sterilization of all women before vasectomies even get brought up.
BritKnee on 14/11/2022 at 15:05
Quote Posted by Cipheron
I thought at first you might be over-reacting to someone who was just "notice how dumb/uneducated people have lots of kids" ...
But then read back up the posts and saw that they floated the idea of "enforced abortions" which is all kinds of messed up. Fundamentally, someone would be needing to make the decision about who "needs" the abortion (not who wants one) so it's eugenics by definition. Even if, what I think this is saying, is to enforce a 100% abortion rate, then only allow people to have children if they pass some kind of test.
If that's the case however they should just enforce 100% vasectomy rate on men, thus preventing the need to have any abortions. There's basically no way you could justify forcing all women to constantly have abortions before you'd just make every guy get "the snip" by default. It's sort of a worry that these discussions often veer closer to forced sterilization of all women before vasectomies even get brought up.
I would agree, however a vasectomy cannot be reversed often times. An abortion is much easier to control, there is not a limited amount of times it can be done.
People keep bringing up ethnic cleansing in this topic. While it is possible people could be targeted due to race, it isn't for sure guaranteed. Think of it as like professional dog breeders. They need state signed authorization to breed the dogs.
What is the difference between the dogs and the babies?
SD on 14/11/2022 at 15:53
Quote Posted by Nicker
Seven plus billion of us is too much to ask of the planet.
I agree with the sentiment, but it's somewhat at odds with prevailing attitudes in the covid thread, don't you think.
Dia on 14/11/2022 at 16:04
Quote Posted by BritKnee
I would agree, however a vasectomy cannot be reversed often times. An abortion is much easier to control, there is not a limited amount of times it can be done.
Key word: 'control'. When you talk about 'controlling' abortions you're talking about overriding women's rights to bodily autonomy. Unacceptable, period. And who would be the judge of which pregnancies need to be aborted? That group of wrinkled old white politicians with fragile male egos who are in favor of destroying women's rights entirely? There should be
no question of 'controlling' anything regarding women's rights.
Quote Posted by BritKnee
People keep bringing up ethnic cleansing in this topic. While it is possible people could be targeted due to race, it isn't for sure guaranteed. Think of it as like professional dog breeders. They need state signed authorization to breed the dogs.
Systemic racism as rampant globally. What you're talking about is authoritarian-level decision making with no regards for the right to bodily autonomy of the women involved. And that's not just unacceptable but intolerable as well.
Quote Posted by BritKnee
What is the difference between the dogs and the babies?
There are no babies involved in abortions, only non-sentient, non-viable zygotes, embryos or early-term fetuses. And that had to be the most ridiculous, most stupid question I've read on these forums to date. I mean, seriously, do you lie awake at night just thinking up stupid shit to post in an effort to trigger people?
Hey Al! Looks like we have another troll loose in our midst. Can you please fix that? Tx!
BritKnee on 14/11/2022 at 17:01
Quote Posted by Dia
Key word: 'control'. When you talk about 'controlling' abortions you're talking about overriding women's rights to bodily autonomy. Unacceptable, period. And who would be the judge of which pregnancies need to be aborted? That group of wrinkled old white politicians with fragile male egos who are in favor of destroying women's rights entirely? There should be
no question of 'controlling' anything regarding women's rights.
Systemic racism as rampant globally. What you're talking about is authoritarian-level decision making with no regards for the right to bodily autonomy of the women involved. And that's not just unacceptable but intolerable as well.
There are no babies involved in abortions, only non-sentient, non-viable zygotes, embryos or early-term fetuses. And that had to be the most ridiculous, most stupid question I've read on these forums to date. I mean, seriously, do you lie awake at night just thinking up stupid shit to post in an effort to trigger people?
Hey Al! Looks like we have another troll loose in our midst. Can you please fix that? Tx!
Okay I agree that fetuses aren't human, it's more of a figure of speech. Furthermore, I don't participate in online arguments often, I just thought my initial question would be an interesting subject to bring up. "Triggering liberals" would be a stupid goal of mine considering I am myself a liberal (just not the American variety).
On that point, I understand this is a topic about Roe v Wade, but political discussions online are overwhelmingly American dominated. As someone who lives in the European Union I don't understand why people bring up factors such as race, gender etc into these conversations when discussing global events. They aren't as prevalent outside of North America, out here it is class that separates everyone.
mopgoblin on 14/11/2022 at 19:47
Nothing like being bored with a thread talking about a specific real-world violation of women's bodily autonomy, and deciding it would be an interesting change of pace to talk about a different violation of women's bodily autonomy in suspiciously eager terms
