Current Events > The punishment for having an abortion after rape in Alabama is now greater than

(+) Yeah! (+)

You can get executed for rape, so no.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

BigSLM1993 posted...

Don't forget some gems coming out of this situation

" Republican Senator Clyde Chambliss argued that the ban was still fair to victims of rape and incest because those women would still be allowed to get an abortion "until she knows she's pregnant," a statement that garnered a mixture of groans and cackles from the chamber's gallery. "

"With liberal states approving radical late-term and post-birth abortions, Roe must be challenged, and I am proud that Alabama is leading the way," Ainsworth tweeted on Tuesday night."

https://tinyurl.com/y682askv

Wouldn't "post birth abortion" be the death penalty? Something currently legal in Alabama.

Post birth abortion is literally just fake news that subhumans use as propaganda. It isn't a thing. There was allegedly one doctor at some point who was performing them illegally and was caught and thrown in jail for it. It isn't a thing that is legal or that happens under normal or established circumstances.
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Deedice posted...

jborgan posted...

People who call it murder aren't worth having a discussion with.

Its only worth discussing things with people who think the same as you? Thats really close-minded

It has nothing to do with only speaking with people that agree with you, it has more to do with not wasting time with people that refuse to be intellectually honest.

For example, I pointed out that a fetus is not a baby because a fetus cannot survive outside the womb. A person that calls abortion murder instead of attempting to refute that point just decided to go off on a tangent about semantics. That is an e ample of how those people work. They don't actually care about having a discussion and want to just plug their ears and ignore everything that is said to them. That is why it's not worth having g a discussion with them.

So would you agree that abortion after the point of viability is murder?

Hop103 posted...

You can get executed for rape, so no.

No you can't.
---

Sheep007 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I don't speak for other people, but I don't think pro-life people are evil, I believe them when they say they believe abortion is murder, I have no problem considering a fetus a human being, I recognize that a human being's life ends because of abortion, and that does not cause any problem for my position.

This is very similar to my position. My reasoning is that the fetus has had no chance to experience life and therefore has nothing to lose, and they do not feel pain until at least the second trimester, iirc (may be wrong, feel free to correct me). Before that point, it's basically just slightly later contraception to me, as the fetus cannot suffer. After that, it's a bit less clear. I think that picking when life starts would be arbitrary in the first place, but as I'm personally not religious I don't see a basis for suggesting that life is inherently sacred or special.

This is my stance also. I'm adopted, so abortion was on the table for me. If it had happened, I would have ceased to exist before experiencing existence subjectively, and I have absolutely no problem with that. It doesn't bother me and I see no problem with anyone choosing to go that route.
---

Tupacrulez posted...

Imagine actually thinking the penalty for aborting a tumour forced into you by a criminal should be higher than the crime committed upon you.

Fuckin Christlovers.

That kind of rhetoric is just making things worse.

Look. Perhaps youre more of an emotional-reactionary type than a debate-the-issue type. But on behalf of people who are trying to move society forward, could I ask you to sit this out?

The thing that's always gotten me about the pro life crowd is their unwillingness to fund social safety nets that help these children and families post birth

Like, they'll object to higher taxes and support cuts to programs like WIC and SNAP, saying things like "why should I pay for your life choices" but in the same breath, deny people said choice in the first place

Logically, it has to be one or the other; if you demand that these children be born to families that can't support them, then you need to be ready to pay for the outcome of your beliefs
---

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Hop103 posted...

You can get executed for rape, so no.

No you can't.

Rape is a capital offense in some cases.
---

NeoShadowhen posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Deedice posted...

jborgan posted...

People who call it murder aren't worth having a discussion with.

Its only worth discussing things with people who think the same as you? Thats really close-minded

It has nothing to do with only speaking with people that agree with you, it has more to do with not wasting time with people that refuse to be intellectually honest.

For example, I pointed out that a fetus is not a baby because a fetus cannot survive outside the womb. A person that calls abortion murder instead of attempting to refute that point just decided to go off on a tangent about semantics. That is an e ample of how those people work. They don't actually care about having a discussion and want to just plug their ears and ignore everything that is said to them. That is why it's not worth having g a discussion with them.

So would you agree that abortion after the point of viability is murder?

If the baby can survive outside the womb then yes I would consider it murder. Which would mean considering that 50 to 70% of babies born at 25 weeks survive that would be a reasonable cut off for abortions. For comparison only 20 to 30% of babies born at 24 weeks survive. So actually, 24 weeks would make the reasonable cut off.
---

Damn rednecks ruin this country

Hop103 posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Hop103 posted...

You can get executed for rape, so no.

No you can't.

Rape is a capital offense in some cases.

No it isn't.
---

MarqueeSeries posted...

The thing that's always gotten me about the pro life crowd is their unwillingness to fund social safety nets that help these children and families post birth

Like, they'll object to higher taxes and support cuts to programs like WIC and SNAP, saying things like "why should I pay for your life choices" but in the same breath, deny people said choice in the first place

Logically, it has to be one or the other; if you demand that these children be born to families that can't support them, then you need to be ready to pay for the outcome of your beliefs

I'm pro-choice but I wanted to engage this argument because I think it misrepresents the opposing viewpoint and we're only going to win this fight if we understand where the opposition is coming from.

You're saying that it has to be one or the other, but that's because you're not framing it the way they would. Their argument is one of personal responsibility, and they see both as an attempt to escape from it. Not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then getting an abortion to them is escaping the repercussions of their decisions. Similarly, not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then expecting others to pay to raise your child is just another form of the same problem.

They're not demanding that people have kids and then expecting them to raise them without financial support. What they're demanding is for people to start realizing that there are serious consequences to unprotected sex and to start acting more responsibly rather than looking for more ways to do what you want without having to deal with the consequences. To them, the cheapest and most effective plan to avoid all of this is to just use a condom.

Now, obviously you get into contradictions when you start talking about rape victims or abstinence-only Christian conservatives, but both represent a relatively small percentage of the larger debate.
---

s0nicfan posted...

that there are serious consequences to unprotected sex and to start acting more responsibly rather than looking for more ways to do what you want without having to deal with the consequences.

Your entire post was great, the type of conversation we actually need on this cesspool we call a message board, but I want to argue against the focal point of your post I quoted

"Serious consequences" is incredibly subjective to me. The first trimester the fetus ranges from being a clump of cells to something the size of an avocado basically. It has zero perception, zero awareness, it has less of a claim to life than a plant in this stage. Why does this fetus have to be assumed as a serious consequence? Would you care if a woman you never met used the morning after pill? Did she commit murder? Is engaging in physical exercise while pregnant reckless endangerment of a human life? If a woman experiences a miscarriage should she be arrested for manslaughter?

Human rights are inalienable because they are important to sentient beings. A fetus is not sentient, it may become one, but if you abort the fetus you are not murdering a human, you are preventing the birth of one. I'll ask in an objective, "cold" manner: when we have millions of humans dying from war, disease, and famine, do we really need to cherish the sanctity of life of a 2 week old fetus that nobody wants?

The disconnect is whether or not abortion is murder. When does human life begin? What is the justification for murder?

These questions will never be answered in our lifetime.
---

Tupacrulez posted...

Imagine actually thinking the penalty for aborting a tumour forced into you by a criminal should be higher than the crime committed upon you.

Fuckin Christlovers.

So now your devaluing human life to the point of calling unborn children tumors? Thats extremely weird

Like, you might have a case if you were arguing for only rape cases to be able to have abortions legally, but that doesnt seem to be the issue
---

clearaflagrantj posted...

s0nicfan posted...

that there are serious consequences to unprotected sex and to start acting more responsibly rather than looking for more ways to do what you want without having to deal with the consequences.

Your entire post was great, the type of conversation we actually need on this cesspool we call a message board, but I want to argue against the focal point of your post I quoted

"Serious consequences" is incredibly subjective to me. The first trimester the fetus ranges from being a clump of cells to something the size of an avocado basically. It has zero perception, zero awareness, it has less of a claim to life than a plant in this stage. Why does this fetus have to be assumed as a serious consequence? Would you care if a woman you never met used the morning after pill? Did she commit murder? Is engaging in physical exercise while pregnant reckless endangerment of a human life? If a woman experiences a miscarriage should she be arrested for manslaughter?

Human rights are inalienable because they are important to sentient beings. A fetus is not sentient, it may become one, but if you abort the fetus you are not murdering a human, you are preventing the birth of one. I'll ask in an objective, "cold" manner: when we have millions of humans dying from war, disease, and famine, do we really need to cherish the sanctity of life of a 2 week old fetus that nobody wants?

I was explicitly avoiding the "when does human life begin" argument because, while equally (if not more so) important, it's explicitly separate from the point I initially engaged in. Their perspective is that it's a baby, so their viewpoint is framed in that perspective. I actually think a good "middle ground" in this debate that hasn't been engaged with yet is to get conservatives to accept that abortions are acceptable up until viability (as Roe v Wade defined), but then to also invest into STEM research to bring that number down. At the time of Roe v Wade a fetus was almost assuredly going to die if born 3 months premature, but nowadays that has a reasonable chance of surviving. If science can bring viability down to within the first 3 months, then conservatives get to say "no abortions after 3 months" for example.

As to your last paragraph, I'd sincerely suggest avoiding that argument because it can and will be used against you in basically every major issue. For example: "when we have homeless citizens, do we really need to cherish the life of homeless noncitizens?" "when we have innocents being murdered constantly, do we really need to cherish the life of a murderer on death row?" You open up the debate to be not about whether life is worth preserving or not, but at what level of "value" said life is worth preserving, and then you'll have to explain why coma victims are worth keeping on support if they have less brain activity than a fetus.
---

The sad thing is that these laws look relatively kind and soft compared to Northern Ireland, which has its own set of laws around it compared to the rest of the UK.
---

Silver Bearings posted...

The disconnect is whether or not abortion is murder. When does human life begin? What is the justification for murder?

These questions will never be answered in our lifetime.

They have been though. Just people dont want to hear it if it isnt in line with their perspective
---

Taharqa_ posted...

One of my goals in life, as it pertains to travel, will be to never set foot in Alabama ever again. Seriously, what a backwards shithole state. The only thing keeping Alabama from being the worst state in the union is Mississippi.

Neither can compete with California.
---

Deedice posted...

Silver Bearings posted...

The disconnect is whether or not abortion is murder. When does human life begin? What is the justification for murder?

These questions will never be answered in our lifetime.

They have been though. Just people dont want to hear it if it isnt in line with their perspective

When does human life being?
---

s0nicfan posted...

MarqueeSeries posted...

The thing that's always gotten me about the pro life crowd is their unwillingness to fund social safety nets that help these children and families post birth

Like, they'll object to higher taxes and support cuts to programs like WIC and SNAP, saying things like "why should I pay for your life choices" but in the same breath, deny people said choice in the first place

Logically, it has to be one or the other; if you demand that these children be born to families that can't support them, then you need to be ready to pay for the outcome of your beliefs

I'm pro-choice but I wanted to engage this argument because I think it misrepresents the opposing viewpoint and we're only going to win this fight if we understand where the opposition is coming from.

You're saying that it has to be one or the other, but that's because you're not framing it the way they would. Their argument is one of personal responsibility, and they see both as an attempt to escape from it. Not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then getting an abortion to them is escaping the repercussions of their decisions. Similarly, not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then expecting others to pay to raise your child is just another form of the same problem.

They're not demanding that people have kids and then expecting them to raise them without financial support. What they're demanding is for people to start realizing that there are serious consequences to unprotected sex and to start acting more responsibly rather than looking for more ways to do what you want without having to deal with the consequences. To them, the cheapest and most effective plan to avoid all of this is to just use a condom.

Now, obviously you get into contradictions when you start talking about rape victims or abstinence-only Christian conservatives, but both represent a relatively small percentage of the larger debate.

That's a fair understanding but it totally misses the point getting an abortion is taking personal responsibility, my wife had one when she was 16 and she has a friend that has had 2 since her first child(single mother) and both of them went through pretty bad emotional turmoil because of them. The majority of people don't get abortions to dodge responsibility, they get them because it is the most responsible thing to do at the time.
---

Deedice posted...

Tupacrulez posted...

Imagine actually thinking the penalty for aborting a tumour forced into you by a criminal should be higher than the crime committed upon you.

Fuckin Christlovers.

So now your devaluing human life to the point of calling unborn children tumors? Thats extremely weird

Like, you might have a case if you were arguing for only rape cases to be able to have abortions legally, but that doesnt seem to be the issue

Until birth a baby is quite literally a parasite.

Until the second trimester it is all but a tumour.
---

I'd also like to point out that this entire debate can be settled by congress passing a law. The only reason Alabama can get away with this is because abortion rights were never actually codified into law, but interpreted from existing law by the supreme court. They took the due process clause of the 14th amendment and argued that a woman's right to personal liberty meant she had the right to an abortion, but in the 45+ years since that ruling congress has never really seriously tried to pass a law to fix it.

To this day, some people will point to Roe v Wade as an example of extrajudicial authority (AKA legislating from the bench) and use it as evidence as to why the courts needs to be stacked in one direction or another.

I know it doesn't really "fix" the issue here, but it bothers me that we've become so complacent towards the idea that congress doesn't do their actual job anymore that we fight harder for getting things done through alternative means than we do towards getting them off their asses and drafting bills/laws to remove ambiguity from the situation.
---

s0nicfan posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

s0nicfan posted...

that there are serious consequences to unprotected sex and to start acting more responsibly rather than looking for more ways to do what you want without having to deal with the consequences.

Your entire post was great, the type of conversation we actually need on this cesspool we call a message board, but I want to argue against the focal point of your post I quoted

"Serious consequences" is incredibly subjective to me. The first trimester the fetus ranges from being a clump of cells to something the size of an avocado basically. It has zero perception, zero awareness, it has less of a claim to life than a plant in this stage. Why does this fetus have to be assumed as a serious consequence? Would you care if a woman you never met used the morning after pill? Did she commit murder? Is engaging in physical exercise while pregnant reckless endangerment of a human life? If a woman experiences a miscarriage should she be arrested for manslaughter?

Human rights are inalienable because they are important to sentient beings. A fetus is not sentient, it may become one, but if you abort the fetus you are not murdering a human, you are preventing the birth of one. I'll ask in an objective, "cold" manner: when we have millions of humans dying from war, disease, and famine, do we really need to cherish the sanctity of life of a 2 week old fetus that nobody wants?

I was explicitly avoiding the "when does human life begin" argument because, while equally (if not more so) important, it's explicitly separate from the point I initially engaged in. Their perspective is that it's a baby, so their viewpoint is framed in that perspective. I actually think a good "middle ground" in this debate that hasn't been engaged with yet is to get conservatives to accept that abortions are acceptable up until viability (as Roe v Wade defined), but then to also invest into STEM research to bring that number down. At the time of Roe v Wade a fetus was almost assuredly going to die if born 3 months premature, but nowadays that has a reasonable chance of surviving. If science can bring viability down to within the first 3 months, then conservatives get to say "no abortions after 3 months" for example.

As to your last paragraph, I'd sincerely suggest avoiding that argument because it can and will be used against you in basically every major issue. For example: "when we have homeless citizens, do we really need to cherish the life of homeless noncitizens?" "when we have innocents being murdered constantly, do we really need to cherish the life of a murderer on death row?" You open up the debate to be not about whether life is worth preserving or not, but at what level of "value" said life is worth preserving, and then you'll have to explain why coma victims are worth keeping on support if they have less brain activity than a fetus.

Theyve been suspended for referring to certain people as subhuman.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

s0nicfan posted...

MarqueeSeries posted...

The thing that's always gotten me about the pro life crowd is their unwillingness to fund social safety nets that help these children and families post birth

Like, they'll object to higher taxes and support cuts to programs like WIC and SNAP, saying things like "why should I pay for your life choices" but in the same breath, deny people said choice in the first place

Logically, it has to be one or the other; if you demand that these children be born to families that can't support them, then you need to be ready to pay for the outcome of your beliefs

I'm pro-choice but I wanted to engage this argument because I think it misrepresents the opposing viewpoint and we're only going to win this fight if we understand where the opposition is coming from.

You're saying that it has to be one or the other, but that's because you're not framing it the way they would. Their argument is one of personal responsibility, and they see both as an attempt to escape from it. Not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then getting an abortion to them is escaping the repercussions of their decisions. Similarly, not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then expecting others to pay to raise your child is just another form of the same problem.

They're not demanding that people have kids and then expecting them to raise them without financial support. What they're demanding is for people to start realizing that there are serious consequences to unprotected sex and to start acting more responsibly rather than looking for more ways to do what you want without having to deal with the consequences. To them, the cheapest and most effective plan to avoid all of this is to just use a condom.

Now, obviously you get into contradictions when you start talking about rape victims or abstinence-only Christian conservatives, but both represent a relatively small percentage of the larger debate.

That's a fair understanding but it totally misses the point getting an abortion is taking personal responsibility, my wife had one when she was 16 and she has a friend that has had 2 since her first child(single mother) and both of them went through pretty bad emotional turmoil because of them. The majority of people don't get abortions to dodge responsibility, they get them because it is the most responsible thing to do at the time.

Abstinence, adoption and protection are all simple ways to not be in that situation. Killing a life is not a responsible choice. .
---

Tupacrulez posted...

Until birth a baby is quite literally a parasite.

Until the second trimester it is all but a tumour.

Both of these statements are objectively false. We don't need to lie in order to justify a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
---

TrevorBlack79 posted...

We don't need to lie in order to justify a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

I just want to emphasize this
---

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Tupacrulez posted...

Until birth a baby is quite literally a parasite.

Until the second trimester it is all but a tumour.

Both of these statements are objectively false. We don't need to lie in order to justify a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

What do you call a multicellular organism residing inside or attached to a different organism that absorbs the host's nutrition for itself, causes discomfort to the host, and has a fairly decent chance of killing the host when removed?
---

Tupacrulez posted...

Deedice posted...

Tupacrulez posted...

Imagine actually thinking the penalty for aborting a tumour forced into you by a criminal should be higher than the crime committed upon you.

Fuckin Christlovers.

So now your devaluing human life to the point of calling unborn children tumors? Thats extremely weird

Like, you might have a case if you were arguing for only rape cases to be able to have abortions legally, but that doesnt seem to be the issue

Until birth a baby is quite literally a parasite.

Until the second trimester it is all but a tumour.

Not literally a parasite, as the definition of a parasite requires that it is another species.
You could say like a parasite, but not literally a parasite.

Tyranthraxus posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Tupacrulez posted...

Until birth a baby is quite literally a parasite.

Until the second trimester it is all but a tumour.

Both of these statements are objectively false. We don't need to lie in order to justify a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

What do you call a multicellular organism residing inside or attached to a different organism that absorbs the host's nutrition for itself, causes discomfort to the host, and has a fairly decent chance of killing the host when removed?

The definition of a parasite excludes members of the same species.
---

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Tupacrulez posted...

Until birth a baby is quite literally a parasite.

Until the second trimester it is all but a tumour.

Both of these statements are objectively false. We don't need to lie in order to justify a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

What do you call a multicellular organism residing inside or attached to a different organism that absorbs the host's nutrition for itself, causes discomfort to the host, and has a fairly decent chance of killing the host when removed?

The definition of a parasite excludes members of the same species.

This is one of those "technically correct" things. Like Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Tupacrulez posted...

Until birth a baby is quite literally a parasite.

Until the second trimester it is all but a tumour.

Both of these statements are objectively false. We don't need to lie in order to justify a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

What do you call a multicellular organism residing inside or attached to a different organism that absorbs the host's nutrition for itself, causes discomfort to the host, and has a fairly decent chance of killing the host when removed?

Shadow the Hedgehog, and the host is the Sonic franchise.
---

Big ups to Alabama. A win for the good guys
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Tupacrulez posted...

Until birth a baby is quite literally a parasite.

Until the second trimester it is all but a tumour.

Both of these statements are objectively false. We don't need to lie in order to justify a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

What do you call a multicellular organism residing inside or attached to a different organism that absorbs the host's nutrition for itself, causes discomfort to the host, and has a fairly decent chance of killing the host when removed?

The definition of a parasite excludes members of the same species.

This is one of those "technically correct" things. Like Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Sure, you didn't originally double down with a fake definition because you were ignorant of the actual definition, you doubled down because you were only technically wrong.

Regardless, this is a discussion where that kind of hyperbolic nonsense hurts your argument more than it helps. When people go the "clump of cells/parasite/tumor route it's a clear signal to your opposition to just tune you out, along with everyone else who actually is arguing in good faith.
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

s0nicfan posted...

MarqueeSeries posted...

The thing that's always gotten me about the pro life crowd is their unwillingness to fund social safety nets that help these children and families post birth

Like, they'll object to higher taxes and support cuts to programs like WIC and SNAP, saying things like "why should I pay for your life choices" but in the same breath, deny people said choice in the first place

Logically, it has to be one or the other; if you demand that these children be born to families that can't support them, then you need to be ready to pay for the outcome of your beliefs

I'm pro-choice but I wanted to engage this argument because I think it misrepresents the opposing viewpoint and we're only going to win this fight if we understand where the opposition is coming from.

You're saying that it has to be one or the other, but that's because you're not framing it the way they would. Their argument is one of personal responsibility, and they see both as an attempt to escape from it. Not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then getting an abortion to them is escaping the repercussions of their decisions. Similarly, not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then expecting others to pay to raise your child is just another form of the same problem.

They're not demanding that people have kids and then expecting them to raise them without financial support. What they're demanding is for people to start realizing that there are serious consequences to unprotected sex and to start acting more responsibly rather than looking for more ways to do what you want without having to deal with the consequences. To them, the cheapest and most effective plan to avoid all of this is to just use a condom.

Now, obviously you get into contradictions when you start talking about rape victims or abstinence-only Christian conservatives, but both represent a relatively small percentage of the larger debate.

That's a fair understanding but it totally misses the point getting an abortion is taking personal responsibility, my wife had one when she was 16 and she has a friend that has had 2 since her first child(single mother) and both of them went through pretty bad emotional turmoil because of them. The majority of people don't get abortions to dodge responsibility, they get them because it is the most responsible thing to do at the time.

Abstinence, adoption and protection are all simple ways to not be in that situation. Killing a life is not a responsible choice. .

You haven't responded to my previous response to you.
---

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Tupacrulez posted...

Until birth a baby is quite literally a parasite.

Until the second trimester it is all but a tumour.

Both of these statements are objectively false. We don't need to lie in order to justify a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

What do you call a multicellular organism residing inside or attached to a different organism that absorbs the host's nutrition for itself, causes discomfort to the host, and has a fairly decent chance of killing the host when removed?

The definition of a parasite excludes members of the same species.

This is one of those "technically correct" things. Like Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Sure, you didn't originally double down because you were ignorant of the definition, you doubled down because you were only technically wrong.

Regardless, this is a discussion where that kind of hyperbolic nonsense hurts your argument more than it helps. When people go the "clump of cells/parasite/tumor route it's a clear signal to your opposition to just tune you out, along with everyone else who actually is arguing in good faith.

Short end of the story. If I, myself, not a fetus or embryo or whatever, but if I, as an adult required physical access and contact to your body or else I will die, that still doesn't entitle me to your body, nor are you a murderer for not allowing me to have that access.
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

s0nicfan posted...

MarqueeSeries posted...

The thing that's always gotten me about the pro life crowd is their unwillingness to fund social safety nets that help these children and families post birth

Like, they'll object to higher taxes and support cuts to programs like WIC and SNAP, saying things like "why should I pay for your life choices" but in the same breath, deny people said choice in the first place

Logically, it has to be one or the other; if you demand that these children be born to families that can't support them, then you need to be ready to pay for the outcome of your beliefs

I'm pro-choice but I wanted to engage this argument because I think it misrepresents the opposing viewpoint and we're only going to win this fight if we understand where the opposition is coming from.

You're saying that it has to be one or the other, but that's because you're not framing it the way they would. Their argument is one of personal responsibility, and they see both as an attempt to escape from it. Not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then getting an abortion to them is escaping the repercussions of their decisions. Similarly, not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then expecting others to pay to raise your child is just another form of the same problem.

They're not demanding that people have kids and then expecting them to raise them without financial support. What they're demanding is for people to start realizing that there are serious consequences to unprotected sex and to start acting more responsibly rather than looking for more ways to do what you want without having to deal with the consequences. To them, the cheapest and most effective plan to avoid all of this is to just use a condom.

Now, obviously you get into contradictions when you start talking about rape victims or abstinence-only Christian conservatives, but both represent a relatively small percentage of the larger debate.

That's a fair understanding but it totally misses the point getting an abortion is taking personal responsibility, my wife had one when she was 16 and she has a friend that has had 2 since her first child(single mother) and both of them went through pretty bad emotional turmoil because of them. The majority of people don't get abortions to dodge responsibility, they get them because it is the most responsible thing to do at the time.

Abstinence, adoption and protection are all simple ways to not be in that situation. Killing a life is not a responsible choice. .

You haven't responded to my previous response to you.

My apologies. Please refer me to that post.
---

Agreed, so I'm not sure why you posted that in reply to me as if it contradicts something I've said itt.
---

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Agreed, so I'm not sure why you posted that in reply to me as if it contradicts something I've said itt.

I just figured I would contribute some non hyperbolic opinions.
---

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Agreed, so I'm not sure why you posted that in reply to me as if it contradicts something I've said itt.

Its an interesting hypothetical, but unfortunately not one that has much use in reality. Ill try to clean it up and make it more realistic.

Person B requires a bone marrow transplant from Person A. They can only receive a bone marrow transplant from person A and will die if they do not receive it.

It basically boils down to a persons right to bodily autonomy trumps another persons right to life. This seems problematic on the surface, because typically rights only extend as far as to where they infringe on the rights of others.

But it can be looked at in the opposite way also. Someones right to life only extends to where it doesnt infringe on someone elses rights. But is that only true for bodily autonomy, or for all rights?

Do some rights supersede others?

NeoShadowhen posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Agreed, so I'm not sure why you posted that in reply to me as if it contradicts something I've said itt.

It?s an interesting hypothetical, but unfortunately not one that has much use in reality. I?ll try to clean it up and make it more realistic.

Person B requires a bone marrow transplant from Person A. They can only receive a bone marrow transplant from person A and will die if they do not receive it.

It basically boils down to a persons right to bodily autonomy trumps another persons right to life. This seems problematic on the surface, because typically rights only extend as far as to where they infringe on the rights of others.

But it can be looked at in the opposite way also. Someone?s right to life only extends to where it doesn?t infringe on someone else?s rights. But is that only true for bodily autonomy, or for all rights?

Do some rights supersede others?

The rights of the born supersede the rights of the unborn imo
---

Machete posted...

NeoShadowhen posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Agreed, so I'm not sure why you posted that in reply to me as if it contradicts something I've said itt.

It?s an interesting hypothetical, but unfortunately not one that has much use in reality. I?ll try to clean it up and make it more realistic.

Person B requires a bone marrow transplant from Person A. They can only receive a bone marrow transplant from person A and will die if they do not receive it.

It basically boils down to a persons right to bodily autonomy trumps another persons right to life. This seems problematic on the surface, because typically rights only extend as far as to where they infringe on the rights of others.

But it can be looked at in the opposite way also. Someone?s right to life only extends to where it doesn?t infringe on someone else?s rights. But is that only true for bodily autonomy, or for all rights?

Do some rights supersede others?

The rights of the born supersede the rights of the unborn imo

It seems like a dangerous road to go down, stratifying rights based on who the person is rather than what the right is. But Ill hear you out. Why?

NeoShadowhen posted...

Machete posted...

NeoShadowhen posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Agreed, so I'm not sure why you posted that in reply to me as if it contradicts something I've said itt.

It?s an interesting hypothetical, but unfortunately not one that has much use in reality. I?ll try to clean it up and make it more realistic.

Person B requires a bone marrow transplant from Person A. They can only receive a bone marrow transplant from person A and will die if they do not receive it.

It basically boils down to a persons right to bodily autonomy trumps another persons right to life. This seems problematic on the surface, because typically rights only extend as far as to where they infringe on the rights of others.

But it can be looked at in the opposite way also. Someone?s right to life only extends to where it doesn?t infringe on someone else?s rights. But is that only true for bodily autonomy, or for all rights?

Do some rights supersede others?

The rights of the born supersede the rights of the unborn imo

It seems like a dangerous road to go down, stratifying rights based on who the person is rather than what the right is. But I?ll hear you out. Why?

It's what I prefer. I would be most displeased if an unwanted genetic offspring infringed upon my rights, so my stance on the issue is in accordance.
---

Machete posted...

NeoShadowhen posted...

Machete posted...

NeoShadowhen posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Agreed, so I'm not sure why you posted that in reply to me as if it contradicts something I've said itt.

It?s an interesting hypothetical, but unfortunately not one that has much use in reality. I?ll try to clean it up and make it more realistic.

Person B requires a bone marrow transplant from Person A. They can only receive a bone marrow transplant from person A and will die if they do not receive it.

It basically boils down to a persons right to bodily autonomy trumps another persons right to life. This seems problematic on the surface, because typically rights only extend as far as to where they infringe on the rights of others.

But it can be looked at in the opposite way also. Someone?s right to life only extends to where it doesn?t infringe on someone else?s rights. But is that only true for bodily autonomy, or for all rights?

Do some rights supersede others?

The rights of the born supersede the rights of the unborn imo

It seems like a dangerous road to go down, stratifying rights based on who the person is rather than what the right is. But I?ll hear you out. Why?

It's what I prefer. I would be most displeased if an unwanted genetic offspring infringed upon my rights, so my stance on the issue is in accordance.

Your rights supersede the rights of others if them having equal rights would result in it displeasing you.

Well, I suppose a lot of people have held that stance throughout human history.

NeoShadowhen posted...

Do some rights supersede others?

I can't think of any specific examples where this would be the case. Can you elaborate?
---

TrevorBlack79 posted...

NeoShadowhen posted...

Do some rights supersede others?

I can't think of any specific examples where this would be the case. Can you elaborate?

Not really. I didnt expect to trip over such a nebulous philosophical concept. The only thing I can think to do to start tackling it would be to start listing human rights, but thats a hell of an undertaking.

Right to life seems obvious.
Right to bodily autonomy.
Some right to not be enslaved? Some would argue that falls under bodily autonomy though.

NeoShadowhen posted...

Machete posted...

NeoShadowhen posted...

Machete posted...

NeoShadowhen posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Agreed, so I'm not sure why you posted that in reply to me as if it contradicts something I've said itt.

It?s an interesting hypothetical, but unfortunately not one that has much use in reality. I?ll try to clean it up and make it more realistic.

Person B requires a bone marrow transplant from Person A. They can only receive a bone marrow transplant from person A and will die if they do not receive it.

It basically boils down to a persons right to bodily autonomy trumps another persons right to life. This seems problematic on the surface, because typically rights only extend as far as to where they infringe on the rights of others.

But it can be looked at in the opposite way also. Someone?s right to life only extends to where it doesn?t infringe on someone else?s rights. But is that only true for bodily autonomy, or for all rights?

Do some rights supersede others?

The rights of the born supersede the rights of the unborn imo

It seems like a dangerous road to go down, stratifying rights based on who the person is rather than what the right is. But I?ll hear you out. Why?

It's what I prefer. I would be most displeased if an unwanted genetic offspring infringed upon my rights, so my stance on the issue is in accordance.

Your rights supersede the rights of others if them having equal rights would result in it displeasing you.

Well, I suppose a lot of people have held that stance throughout human history.

There are no mental gymnastics and no level of brainwashing that could possibly make me view an embryo or fetus as equal to myself. That's just asinine.
---

Sweet home Alabamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
---

Machete posted...

NeoShadowhen posted...

Machete posted...

NeoShadowhen posted...

Machete posted...

NeoShadowhen posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Agreed, so I'm not sure why you posted that in reply to me as if it contradicts something I've said itt.

It?s an interesting hypothetical, but unfortunately not one that has much use in reality. I?ll try to clean it up and make it more realistic.

Person B requires a bone marrow transplant from Person A. They can only receive a bone marrow transplant from person A and will die if they do not receive it.

It basically boils down to a persons right to bodily autonomy trumps another persons right to life. This seems problematic on the surface, because typically rights only extend as far as to where they infringe on the rights of others.

But it can be looked at in the opposite way also. Someone?s right to life only extends to where it doesn?t infringe on someone else?s rights. But is that only true for bodily autonomy, or for all rights?

Do some rights supersede others?

The rights of the born supersede the rights of the unborn imo

It seems like a dangerous road to go down, stratifying rights based on who the person is rather than what the right is. But I?ll hear you out. Why?

It's what I prefer. I would be most displeased if an unwanted genetic offspring infringed upon my rights, so my stance on the issue is in accordance.

Your rights supersede the rights of others if them having equal rights would result in it displeasing you.

Well, I suppose a lot of people have held that stance throughout human history.

There are no mental gymnastics and no level of brainwashing that could possibly make me view an embryo or fetus as equal to myself. That's just asinine.

But once they are born they are equal to you? What about after reaching the point of viability?

Probably not tbh
---