afcjets wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

A question for those that are both against abortion and against universal healthcare. Why does your concern for human life drop significantly at the moment of birth? Is it because the actual cost to you is close to zero for the former but might actually hit you in the pocket for the latter?

Yes, that's definitely part of the reason. But I can only speak for myself. However I'm against most healthcare as I feel the largest sector of healthcare by far, the pharmaceutical industry, is a racket but there are definitely exceptions. I am interested in shrinking the healthcare industry, not expanding it, but for everyone.

Thank you for your honesty.

EA CO AS wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

A question for those that are both against abortion and against universal healthcare. Why does your concern for human life drop significantly at the moment of birth?

I'd suggest it's because we believe in personal accountability and responsibility. As the data I posted previously showed, the vast majority of abortions are elective in nature, with very few due to rape, incest, fetal anomaly, or to protect the life of the mother.

So abortion is used mainly as a convenience tool, or to avoid the inconvenience of being accountable for personal choices.


For the record, I'm pro-choice, but also believe it should only be for those rare instances I'd mentioned previously.

Interesting. Would you say that being tried for murder is a reasonable punishment for the female if she took the decision to abort? Should a female of say 14 years be subjected to being forced into parenthood for making a spur of the moment mistake, one that will have significant impact on her ongoing education plus the lifelong commitment of parenthood? The physical changes of bearing a child only affect one gender. Should men have more clout (as those in the position to make these rulings are predominantly male) than women?

Virtual737 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

A question for those that are both against abortion and against universal healthcare. Why does your concern for human life drop significantly at the moment of birth? Is it because the actual cost to you is close to zero for the former but might actually hit you in the pocket for the latter?

Yes, that's definitely part of the reason. But I can only speak for myself. However I'm against most healthcare as I feel the largest sector of healthcare by far, the pharmaceutical industry, is a racket but there are definitely exceptions. I am interested in shrinking the healthcare industry, not expanding it, but for everyone.

Thank you for your honesty.

EA CO AS wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

A question for those that are both against abortion and against universal healthcare. Why does your concern for human life drop significantly at the moment of birth?

I'd suggest it's because we believe in personal accountability and responsibility. As the data I posted previously showed, the vast majority of abortions are elective in nature, with very few due to rape, incest, fetal anomaly, or to protect the life of the mother.

So abortion is used mainly as a convenience tool, or to avoid the inconvenience of being accountable for personal choices.


For the record, I'm pro-choice, but also believe it should only be for those rare instances I'd mentioned previously.

Interesting. Would you say that being tried for murder is a reasonable punishment for the female if she took the decision to abort? Should a female of say 14 years be subjected to being forced into parenthood for making a spur of the moment mistake, one that will have significant impact on her ongoing education plus the lifelong commitment of parenthood? The physical changes of bearing a child only affect one gender. Should men have more clout (as those in the position to make these rulings are predominantly male) than women?

And similar to my cardiology question, if the goal is really to address personal accountability and reduce abortion, shouldn't we just mandate that extramarital sex only occur in a stable, committed relationship? That way not only women are on the hook, and they don't have to make awful personal choices when they realize they got pregnant with a guy who was a liar or plain won't stick around. Oh but wait, mostly men are going to write such laws, so nevermind...

Aaron747 wrote:

So extend that logic out a bit...we should abandon most cardiology visits as they are convenience tools. Only people who have mitral valve prolapse, A-fib or some other natural issue really need treatment…

Your argument is flawed. Everything you mentioned here, in your words, is a natural issue - something that occurred without someone choosing to have it happen. Pregnancies don’t spontaneously occur.

Try again.

EA CO AS wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

So extend that logic out a bit...we should abandon most cardiology visits as they are convenience tools. Only people who have mitral valve prolapse, A-fib or some other natural issue really need treatment…

Your argument is flawed. Everything you mentioned here, in your words, is a natural issue - something that occurred without someone choosing to have it happen. Pregnancies don’t spontaneously occur.

Try again.

Aha, so you cut out the part where I mentioned things that don't spontaneously occur, like lack of exercise and high red meat/trans fat intake, with an associated question relating directly to the choices women make. Mmmkay. You can refer to the post above (reply 502) as well, hopefully without disingenuously cutting key context out.

Aesma wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

There is no need to replace the population. With our technology and civilizational level, we could survive with 10 million people on the planet instead of 10 billion. And of course we would all have a much better life, and all other species too. The only downside would be a slower tech advancement as there would be much less scientific research because of less scientists overall.

Problems Japan is facing reflect numerous problem of this. Among other things, a society lacking young members mean it would be much harder for young voice to enter the mainstream and cause refresh and renewal of opinion in the society. The lack of a large youth group in society compares to the babyboomer generation, also have political consequence in many other countries.

But then I won't say abortion is the right issue to argue over this. It would almost be like cheating people into having babies amd that would not lead to healthy family.

These are transitory problems. With a stable population, women would have about 2.1 children on average, and there would be a healthy proportion of young people.

"Women would have about 2.1 children on average", is cause, instead of effect, of "a stable population".
And another thing to note is that, urbanization is ongoing even with shrinking population.
So that mean rural area will continue to lost residents and small villages will be removed from the map while people going to large cities, even with constant population.
It is only natural that people make such choice seeing how the world's current economy is developed, centered around connecting with other industries and other people. But to people living in those area it isn't a comfortable idea.

EA CO AS wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

A question for those that are both against abortion and against universal healthcare. Why does your concern for human life drop significantly at the moment of birth?

I'd suggest it's because we believe in personal accountability and responsibility.

Does that mean you're against adoption too? Parents are dodging their accountability and responsibility that way as well.

Virtual737 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

A question for those that are both against abortion and against universal healthcare. Why does your concern for human life drop significantly at the moment of birth? Is it because the actual cost to you is close to zero for the former but might actually hit you in the pocket for the latter?

Yes, that's definitely part of the reason. But I can only speak for myself. However I'm against most healthcare as I feel the largest sector of healthcare by far, the pharmaceutical industry, is a racket but there are definitely exceptions. I am interested in shrinking the healthcare industry, not expanding it, but for everyone.

Thank you for your honesty.

You're welcome. I should add though I would be much happier to subsidize healthy food for poor people than toxic overpriced drugs that would become unnecessary for many if they had better access to a healthy diet, exercise equipment, nutritional education (ditto for medical schools, I actually don't think it's taught there but I could be misinformed) and that we were a more healthy society. But unlike most of the reports you see, I certainly don't base that on how many hospitals are close by. A truly healthy society would spend very little on "healthcare", which is almost exclusively ill care in the US.

afcjets wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Yes, that's definitely part of the reason. But I can only speak for myself. However I'm against most healthcare as I feel the largest sector of healthcare by far, the pharmaceutical industry, is a racket but there are definitely exceptions. I am interested in shrinking the healthcare industry, not expanding it, but for everyone.

Thank you for your honesty.

You're welcome. I should add though I would be much happier to subsidize healthy food for poor people than toxic overpriced drugs that would become unnecessary for many if they had better access to a healthy diet, exercise equipment, nutritional education (ditto for medical schools, I actually don't think it's taught there but I could be misinformed) and that we were a more healthy society. But unlike most of the reports you see, I certainly don't base that on how many hospitals are close by. A truly healthy society would spend very little on "healthcare", which is almost exclusively ill care in the US.

Although altogether an entirely different topic, those are excellent points. Preventive rather than reactive care makes all the difference.

And it does seem US medical schools do not emphasize nutrition enough - https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... education/

afcjets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Abortions are rare. So please keep going.

Almost 1 out of 3 pregnancies ending in abortion would hardly be considered rare...

"Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year. Six out of 10 (61%) of all unintended pregnancies, and 3 out of 10 (29%) of all pregnancies, end in induced abortion (1)."

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-shee ... l/abortion

But that is world wide. And how many of those are because the woman's life is in danger or the woman does not want to carry a rapist's fetus? Rape is an unintended pregnancy.

Kent350787 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

He never dared to ask his cousin, that despite Europeans having all of that he mentions, they still have same or even higher abortion rate than the US.

So, no, having all of that care for free, won't change anything.

Is a great myth the left says, you conservatives don't want abortion but don't want to care for the children. Well, Europe has according to the left the best social safety net in the world, yet they do more or the same of abortions than the US.

That takes down the cousin's premise. Yet what I just said isn't anecdote, is actual fact. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/11/11657174/ ... es-falling

The simple fact is when a women has an unwanted pregnancy she should be free to do with it what she chooses. Even when there is plenty of help available women still don’t want a baby, that is there right.

Australia has legal abortion in all jurisdictions.

The abortion rate is one of the lowest in the world.

This is about the GOP seeking to galvanise fundamentalist political support. This has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with care for sanctity of life.

To those of us outside the USA (I do also have resident family), this appears far, far too close to Gilead for any degree of comfort.

The drop in the abortion rate appears to correspond to the skyrocketing use of the morning after pill in Australia. Two different paths to the same result no unwanted pregnancies.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... mja2.51217

Vast majority? Like how many? 270 million? 329 million?

cpd wrote:

Vast majority? Like how many? 270 million? 329 million?

==
Opinions vary depending on the circumstances, but at its most broad, when asked if abortion should be legal under any circumstances, over the last 40 plus years, only 30% or so agree.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

It's clearly a societal and not a scientific decision. Scientists can tell you when the heart starts beating, things like that. I'm not even sure there is an agreed opinion on what is life in general, is a virus alive ?

I don't see why a court should decide either, it should be political. The US adds a complication to that, with "states' rights", especially if they now want to have laws in one state that apply to another state...

In France we have a right to an abortion (not constitutional, it's a law) up to 14 weeks. It's provided by the state for free. Abortions after that limit are possible for medical reasons (typically, an issue with the fetus). The limit was recently changed from 12 weeks because it's possible to see Down syndrome characteristics on ultrasounds by 14 weeks.

In practice some women go to another country to seek a later abortion, but it's uncommon.

Aesma wrote:

It's clearly a societal and not a scientific decision. Scientists can tell you when the heart starts beating, things like that. I'm not even sure there is an agreed opinion on what is life in general, is a virus alive ?

I don't see why a court should decide either, it should be political. The US adds a complication to that, with "states' rights", especially if they now want to have laws in one state that apply to another state...

In France we have a right to an abortion (not constitutional, it's a law) up to 14 weeks. It's provided by the state for free. Abortions after that limit are possible for medical reasons (typically, an issue with the fetus). The limit was recently changed from 12 weeks because it's possible to see Down syndrome characteristics on ultrasounds by 14 weeks.

In practice some women go to another country to seek a later abortion, but it's uncommon.

Leaving these issues to states to decide wouldn't be a problem if not for how polarized the intrastate politic of each states in the US are resulting in politicians making unreasonable state laws.

For those arguing Pro Choice.

Is that legalised abortion up to birth?.

bennett123 wrote:

For those arguing Pro Choice.

Is that legalised abortion up to birth?.

In a word? No.

bennett123 wrote:

For those arguing Pro Choice.

Is that legalised abortion up to birth?.

There are circumstances where late term abortion to save the life of the woman. By that stage there are other options for a healthy child.

From the data available data, late term abortion is extremely rare, but medically necessary. It should have boundaries, but should. It be criminalised.

bennett123 wrote:

For those arguing Pro Choice.

Is that legalised abortion up to birth?.

No

In Australia we have it about right. Abortion on demand is available up to 20-24 weeks. This is the age of viability, where the fetus will not survive out of the body anyway.

Post 24 weeks abortions only legal if two doctors agree the continuation of the pregnancy will have significant harm on the mother or the fetus will be born with significant health defects (only 0.2% of abortions are carried out beyond this stage).

It is illegal to protest within 150m of an abortion clinic. Anti abortion protesters face 12 months in prison is they try to harass women outside clinics like they do in the US.

There’s no waiting periods, parental consent doesn’t have to be given for minors. You don’t need to go through a complicated procedure viewing ultrasounds, counselling, getting second opinions. Just rock up to the clinic on the day, you’ll be screened and assessed but generally the procedure can be carried out there and then.

Procedure is carried out in private non hospital clinics, mostly covered by our universal healthcare system although there is usually small fee (no more than a few hundred dollars), and if the abortion is carried out using drugs it is usually less than $50 Australian dollars.

There’s no political debate on abortion, it is widely accepted and considered a private issue for women.

bennett123 wrote:

For those arguing Pro Choice.

Is that legalised abortion up to birth?.

Reference:

(Source on image)

bennett123 wrote:

For those arguing Pro Choice.

Is that legalised abortion up to birth?.

The only people suggesting that are the anti-abortionists who seem to genuinely believe it’s what “the hard left” (whatever that is) want. In reality, the concept is just another conservative boogie man (like gun-grabbing).

If you look at the previous post, a significant minority do want it to be legal in all cases.

bennett123 wrote:

If you look at the previous post, a significant minority do want it to be legal in all cases.

Not significant enough to sway anything of import.

EA CO AS wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

A question for those that are both against abortion and against universal healthcare. Why does your concern for human life drop significantly at the moment of birth?

I'd suggest it's because we believe in personal accountability and responsibility.

Virtual737 wrote:

A question for those that are both against abortion and against universal healthcare. Why does your concern for human life drop significantly at the moment of birth? Is it because the actual cost to you is close to zero for the former but might actually hit you in the pocket for the latter?

Because it ain't about being pro "life" or pro "babies". As George Carlin said:

"Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f#cked.”

emperortk wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

A question for those that are both against abortion and against universal healthcare. Why does your concern for human life drop significantly at the moment of birth?

I'd suggest it's because we believe in personal accountability and responsibility.

Does that mean you're against adoption too? Parents are dodging their accountability and responsibility that way as well.

Important to note that the people that are "pro life" and want to increase the "domestic supply of infants" (their words) are the same people that are fighting to make adoption impossible for anyone that is not straight, white certain-type-of-christian married couple, which means that infant supply festers longer in orphanages.

And also by the way, contraception is next.

GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use
https://www.azmirror.com/blog/gop-senat ... ption-use/

MaverickM11 wrote:

, which means that infant supply festers longer in orphanages.

And also by the way, contraception is next.

GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use
https://www.azmirror.com/blog/gop-senat ... ption-use/

Another rehash of Communist Romania policy. Utterly fascinating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_77 ... population.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/wh ... a-alabama/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ ... n-1.958842

MaverickM11 wrote:

And also by the way, contraception is next.

Of course. It's never been about the fetus, or the potentially born children. "Just don't have sex", conservatives will say, "stay a virgin until marriage and obey your husband for the rest of your life".
That's their entire motivation behind this - punish unchaste women, extramarital sex and other sins against the 'word of god'.

That's also why they're against post-natal support. They want the mother of the unwanted child to suffer for their impious actions.

mxaxai wrote:

That's also why they're against post-natal support. They want the mother of the unwanted child to suffer for their impious actions.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with the babies and everything to do with the women.

Everyone has sex (mostly…) and it’s a fun thing to do. Why does there have to be a potentially negative consequence, when we’ve devised a way to get rid of that consequence? It’s one thing to advise safe sex, it’s another to make it a gamble of potentially altering the rest of your life. But it always boils down to “don’t have sex unless you’re willing to have a baby”

Imagine applying that same logic to everything. Sorry Timmy, we’ve got to amputate that broken leg of yours. I know, you enjoyed riding your bike until you fell off, but you knew the risks when you got on and have to live with those consequences.

FGITD wrote:

Everyone has sex (mostly…) and it’s a fun thing to do. Why does there have to be a potentially negative consequence, when we’ve devised a way to get rid of that consequence?

There has never been a better argument for pro life than this. Your honesty is very refreshing.

bennett123 wrote:

If you look at the previous post, a significant minority do want it to be legal in all cases.

That's because of the way the debate is framed in the US.

FGITD wrote:

Imagine applying that same logic to everything. Sorry Timmy, we’ve got to amputate that broken leg of yours. I know, you enjoyed riding your bike until you fell off, but you knew the risks when you got on and have to live with those consequences.

Your analogy is deeply flawed and profoundly ironic. Sorry Tammy, we've got to amputate that perfectly healthy fetus of yours, you knew the risks of having sex were getting pregnant, and now we're going to punish you by ending this unwanted pregnancy.

afcjets wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Everyone has sex (mostly…) and it’s a fun thing to do. Why does there have to be a potentially negative consequence, when we’ve devised a way to get rid of that consequence?

There has never been a better argument for pro life than this. Your honesty is very refreshing.

That argument being that People should be made to suffer consequences for enjoying themselves is a great argument for pro choice.

Apparently people need to face hardships if they indulge in activities you don’t agree with

FGITD wrote:

afcjets wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Everyone has sex (mostly…) and it’s a fun thing to do. Why does there have to be a potentially negative consequence, when we’ve devised a way to get rid of that consequence?

There has never been a better argument for pro life than this. Your honesty is very refreshing.

That argument being that People should be made to suffer consequences for enjoying themselves is a great argument for pro choice.

Apparently people need to face hardships if they indulge in activities you don’t agree with

It’s just anti freedom.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Kent350787 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

For those arguing Pro Choice.

Is that legalised abortion up to birth?.

There are circumstances where late term abortion to save the life of the woman. By that stage there are other options for a healthy child.

From the data available data, late term abortion is extremely rare, but medically necessary. It should have boundaries, but should. It be criminalised.

Sorry that made almost no sense. I was tired and suffering from Covid. Sierrakilo outlined the generally accepted position in our country.

The division in the USA is almost incomprehensible.

afcjets wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Everyone has sex (mostly…) and it’s a fun thing to do. Why does there have to be a potentially negative consequence, when we’ve devised a way to get rid of that consequence?

There has never been a better argument for pro life than this. Your honesty is very refreshing.

Then you should support my earlier suggestion - that we criminalize extramarital unprotected sex outside of a stable, committed relationship. Takes two to tango and that would level the playing field. Not supporting that means you want solely women to shoulder blame.

MaverickM11 wrote:

by the way, contraception is next.

GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use
https://www.azmirror.com/blog/gop-senat ... ption-use/

Please show me where he says he wants to see states ban contraception use. I'll wait.

FGITD wrote:

People should be made to suffer consequences for enjoying themselves is a great argument for pro choice.

Apparently people need to face hardships if they indulge in activities you don’t agree with

My ten year old son would eat candy all day if I let him. The consequence would be he'd get sick to his stomach and spend the day throwing up. Isn't that a consequence for enjoying himself? Or weight gain if you ate like crap every day rather than a balanced diet? Or didn't exercise at all?

This is the problem with liberals - they believe there are no such things as "right" and "wrong," just "different."

EA CO AS wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

by the way, contraception is next.

GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use
https://www.azmirror.com/blog/gop-senat ... ption-use/

Please show me where he says he wants to see states ban contraception use. I'll wait.

Mmmmkay, what then is the implication in claiming that the Griswold decision was wrong? I'll wait as well.

EA CO AS wrote:

FGITD wrote:

People should be made to suffer consequences for enjoying themselves is a great argument for pro choice.

Apparently people need to face hardships if they indulge in activities you don’t agree with

My ten year old son would eat candy all day if I let him. The consequence would be he'd get sick to his stomach and spend the day throwing up. Isn't that a consequence for enjoying himself? Or weight gain if you ate like crap every day rather than a balanced diet? Or didn't exercise at all?

This is the problem with liberals - they believe there are no such things as "right" and "wrong," just "different."

The problem with ideologue narrative like this is it ignores both real life and the nuance of anything. Upthread was a graph showing a breakdown of how polled Americans feel about the issue, and yes, 19% supported abortion without any restrictions. That is then *not* how most on the left/center feel, and is not the standard set in Roe either. But sure, keep painting the issue with hyperemotional invective, and that's all anyone will hear. It's no wonder nobody can listen to each other anymore.

FGITD wrote:

afcjets wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Everyone has sex (mostly…) and it’s a fun thing to do. Why does there have to be a potentially negative consequence, when we’ve devised a way to get rid of that consequence?

There has never been a better argument for pro life than this. Your honesty is very refreshing.

That argument being that People should be made to suffer consequences for enjoying themselves is a great argument for pro choice.

Apparently people need to face hardships if they indulge in activities you don’t agree with

Aaron747 wrote:

Then you should support my earlier suggestion - that we criminalize extramarital unprotected sex outside of a stable, committed relationship. Takes two to tango and that would level the playing field. Not supporting that means you want solely women to shoulder blame.

That's not the point I was making. It's not about punishing adults, it's about protecting the unborn. What's refreshingly honest is it admits the typical pro choice line that abortion is extremely rare and a gut wrenching decision for most women is a lie (IMO). That might have been true 40-50 years ago but now it's just seen as a convenient little tool women have so no worries.

afcjets wrote:

FGITD wrote:

afcjets wrote:

There has never been a better argument for pro life than this. Your honesty is very refreshing.

That argument being that People should be made to suffer consequences for enjoying themselves is a great argument for pro choice.

Apparently people need to face hardships if they indulge in activities you don’t agree with

Aaron747 wrote:

Then you should support my earlier suggestion - that we criminalize extramarital unprotected sex outside of a stable, committed relationship. Takes two to tango and that would level the playing field. Not supporting that means you want solely women to shoulder blame.

That's not the point I was making. It's not about punishing adults, it's about protecting the unborn. What's refreshingly honest is it admits the typical pro choice line that abortion is extremely rare and a gut wrenching decision for most women is a lie (IMO).

Says a man who has never been in that position, regardless of the background leading up to it. This is the definition of lacking empathy.

You’d be surprised at what one finds in counseling sessions - strong, confident women find themselves broken up about difficult decisions like these made many years before. How much it sticks depends on the emotional makeup and compartmentalization ability of that individual.

Convenience is also relative. It may be an appropriate term for a young woman who enjoys ONS for validation, has an accident, and carries on. It’s quite another for a woman in a relationship she believes to be serious, only to end up pregnant with a guy who will disappear in a month’s time.

Aaron747 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

That's not the point I was making. It's not about punishing adults, it's about protecting the unborn. What's refreshingly honest is it admits the typical pro choice line that abortion is extremely rare and a gut wrenching decision for most women is a lie (IMO).

Says a man who has never been in that position, regardless of the background leading up to it. This is the definition of lacking empathy.

You’d be surprised at what one finds in counseling sessions - strong, confident women find themselves broken up about difficult decisions like these made many years before. How much it sticks depends on the emotional makeup and compartmentalization ability of that individual.

I actually am empathetic and exactly why I think abortion should be seen as extreme, not something that gets you a high five from someone like Elizabeth Warren or AOC or other pro choice women at a march. Abortion harms not only the unborn baby, but often results in deep emotional scars on the women who have them and can last a lifetime. As much as it has been sanitized in the media, politics, and in our culture, abortion is a horrendous procedure at its core, and that reality often sinks in too late.

EA CO AS wrote:

FGITD wrote:

People should be made to suffer consequences for enjoying themselves is a great argument for pro choice.

Apparently people need to face hardships if they indulge in activities you don’t agree with

My ten year old son would eat candy all day if I let him. The consequence would be he'd get sick to his stomach and spend the day throwing up. Isn't that a consequence for enjoying himself? Or weight gain if you ate like crap every day rather than a balanced diet? Or didn't exercise at all?

This is the problem with liberals - they believe there are no such things as "right" and "wrong," just "different."

EA CO AS wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

by the way, contraception is next.

GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use
https://www.azmirror.com/blog/gop-senat ... ption-use/

Please show me where he says he wants to see states ban contraception use. I'll wait.

Still waiting to hear whether you want to ban adoption.

If pregnancy is the consequence of unprotected sex, then surely you must think biological parents shouldn't shirk their personal accountability and responsibility by giving up their child through adoption. If they do, then someone else is stuck having to nurture, raise, and support their child, so they're escaping their consequence for enjoying themselves.

afcjets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

That's not the point I was making. It's not about punishing adults, it's about protecting the unborn. What's refreshingly honest is it admits the typical pro choice line that abortion is extremely rare and a gut wrenching decision for most women is a lie (IMO).

Says a man who has never been in that position, regardless of the background leading up to it. This is the definition of lacking empathy.

You’d be surprised at what one finds in counseling sessions - strong, confident women find themselves broken up about difficult decisions like these made many years before. How much it sticks depends on the emotional makeup and compartmentalization ability of that individual.

I actually am empathetic and exactly why I think abortion should be seen as extreme, not something that gets you a high five from someone like Elizabeth Warren or AOC or other pro choice women at a march. Abortion harms not only the unborn baby, but often results in deep emotional scars on the women who have them and can last a lifetime. As much as it has been sanitized in the media, politics, and in our culture, abortion is a horrendous procedure at its core, and that reality often sinks in too late.

Do you think it's possible the "high five" is not a celebration but rather a public show of support for a woman who has had an abortion because it "often results in deep emotional scars on the women who have them and can last a lifetime," and despite that difficulty and the nastiness around the debate that woman is courageous enough to publicly admit to having had one?

emperortk wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Says a man who has never been in that position, regardless of the background leading up to it. This is the definition of lacking empathy.

You’d be surprised at what one finds in counseling sessions - strong, confident women find themselves broken up about difficult decisions like these made many years before. How much it sticks depends on the emotional makeup and compartmentalization ability of that individual.

I actually am empathetic and exactly why I think abortion should be seen as extreme, not something that gets you a high five from someone like Elizabeth Warren or AOC or other pro choice women at a march. Abortion harms not only the unborn baby, but often results in deep emotional scars on the women who have them and can last a lifetime. As much as it has been sanitized in the media, politics, and in our culture, abortion is a horrendous procedure at its core, and that reality often sinks in too late.

Do you think it's possible the "high five" is not a celebration but rather a public show of support for a woman who has had an abortion because it "often results in deep emotional scars on the women who have them and can last a lifetime," and despite that difficulty and the nastiness around the debate that woman is courageous enough to publicly admit to having had one?

It's obviously a metaphor and no I don't think nor did I intend that. Otherwise I would have used a hug as a metaphor instead.

This whole insistence on "living with consequences" for unprotected sex is utterly risible when you look at the number of far greater sins that can be and are committed without any reproach by anyone. You can have your "consequences" for women once we're done providing consequences for Bill Clinton for partying on Jeffrey Epstein's plane, George W. Bush for starting a war that killed tens of thousands, Donald Trump for getting both his supporters and Capitol police killed in a riot about blatant bullshit, Goldman Sachs and company for their ineptitude setting off the 2008 crisis... "personal accountability and responsibility" my ass. Hell, if it's so important that there be "consequences" for screwing around, shouldn't we be forcing men to endure syphilis and crabs instead of treating them?

EA CO AS wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Abortions are rare. So please keep going.

Rarer still are abortions due to rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's life.

To which I say so what, given that Republicans have now stopped even providing exemptions for such cases with their most recent legislation.

afcjets wrote:

emperortk wrote:

afcjets wrote:

I actually am empathetic and exactly why I think abortion should be seen as extreme, not something that gets you a high five from someone like Elizabeth Warren or AOC or other pro choice women at a march. Abortion harms not only the unborn baby, but often results in deep emotional scars on the women who have them and can last a lifetime. As much as it has been sanitized in the media, politics, and in our culture, abortion is a horrendous procedure at its core, and that reality often sinks in too late.

Do you think it's possible the "high five" is not a celebration but rather a public show of support for a woman who has had an abortion because it "often results in deep emotional scars on the women who have them and can last a lifetime," and despite that difficulty and the nastiness around the debate that woman is courageous enough to publicly admit to having had one?

It's obviously a metaphor and no I don't think nor did I intend that. Otherwise I would have used a hug as a metaphor instead.

So you're making things up to mischaracterize the other side. Cool.

Newark727 wrote:

This whole insistence on "living with consequences" for unprotected sex is utterly risible when you look at the number of far greater sins that can be and are committed without any reproach by anyone.

Just like esteemed and trusted members of the religious community face for molesting children! Lifelong consequences such as being transferred across town to a different church, and being told to try their very hardest not to do it again.

emperortk wrote:

afcjets wrote:

emperortk wrote:

Do you think it's possible the "high five" is not a celebration but rather a public show of support for a woman who has had an abortion because it "often results in deep emotional scars on the women who have them and can last a lifetime," and despite that difficulty and the nastiness around the debate that woman is courageous enough to publicly admit to having had one?

It's obviously a metaphor and no I don't think nor did I intend that. Otherwise I would have used a hug as a metaphor instead.

So you're making things up to mischaracterize the other side. Cool.

A metaphor by definition is made up, however I think it accurately characterizes the other side. Just read some of the posts here. I think a high five is a much kinder metaphor than comparing a fetus to a trespasser, a parasite, and even more kind than comparing it to in essence just a woman's body part. It's not to say a high profile pro choice woman wouldn't lend emotional support to a woman psychologically traumatized by abortion. It just seems logical someone emotionally scarred might encourage other women contemplating abortion to choose life instead, which is a pro life slogan, and I have a hard time imagining Elizabeth Warren or AOC sharing how they met a woman traumatized by her abortion with the media.

Aaron747 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

by the way, contraception is next.

GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use
https://www.azmirror.com/blog/gop-senat ... ption-use/

Please show me where he says he wants to see states ban contraception use. I'll wait.

Mmmmkay, what then is the implication in claiming that the Griswold decision was wrong? I'll wait as well.

The same as with Roe - judges finding "rights" that aren't there.

emperortk wrote:

Still waiting to hear whether you want to ban adoption.

Sorry, I just forgot you were still here.

No.

Bye now.