Poll of the Day > How much do you actually care about the issue of abortion?

(+) Yeah! (+)

It's making big news again with the new restrictions in okla. iirc. I'm personally tired of hearing about it. Are you?

I imagine you're tired of hearing about it because you think it won't impact you personally.

I'm tired of self-righteous pricks forcing it to remain a major issue instead of just keeping to themselves. I shouldn't have to keep hearing about it, but here we are, facing yet another blatant assault on basic bodily autonomy from a crowd that just can't help but masturbate themselves to sleep every night at the thought of punishing women for daring to have sex.

As long as no one is coming after me for child support, I have almost no opinion on the subject.

I support abortion because the people of the future will be even worse, this is how we stop them

Its an easy way to tell how shitty a person is, when they dont care about anything that doesnt directly affect them

You make a lot of topics about it despite being tired of hearing about it.

Couldn't care less

VampireCoyote posted...

I support abortion because the people of the future will be even worse, this is how we stop them

You've won me over with your logic, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.



MICHALECOLE posted...

Its an easy way to tell how shitty a person is, when they dont care about anything that doesnt directly affect them

Its even easier to tell how shitty a person is when they passionately and vocally care about things that should be none of their fucking business.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

You've won me over with your logic, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Its even easier to tell how shitty a person is when they passionately and vocally care about things that should be none of their fucking business.

Im enjoying this recent face turn by you

MICHALECOLE posted...

Im enjoying this recent face turn by you

I'm just lulling you into a false sense of security so you don't see the chair shot to the back of the head coming.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I'm just lulling you into a false sense of security so you don't see the chair shot to the back of the head coming.

Youre getting soft in your old age

MICHALECOLE posted...

Youre getting soft in your old age

Hey now, ED affects a lot of guys over 40. No need to be hurtful about it.

I don't think it'll ever affect my life but I know it's immensely important to people whose lives it can affect. The main argument against it seems to be "But my church said..." and they wanna stick themselves into private matters that don't concern them. So I'd say I'm firmly for letting people decide if it's right for their situation.

It's an important topic and someone's stance on it can be an important factor in whether I think they kinda suck.

Uh I care a ton about it considering I can become pregnant

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Its even easier to tell how shitty a person is when they passionately and vocally care about things that should be none of their fucking business.

Somebody's jimmies got passionately and vocally rustled.

The ability to choose should come with options as safe as they are educated. We do not need a "domestic supply;" we need people to be smarter, wiser, and safer for it. Alas, we have what we do because of intellectually challenged members of multiple self-centered generations, and the result therein. :-/

Well I don't get super emotional about it but I really think it should be legal and think it's stupid what's going on

Blightzkrieg posted...

Somebody's jimmies got passionately and vocally rustled.

How long have you been here? All this time on PotD and you don't seem to know me very well at all.



Entity13 posted...

The ability to choose should come with options as safe as they are educated. We do not need a "domestic supply;" we need people to be smarter, wiser, and safer for it. Alas, we have what we do because of intellectually challenged members of multiple self-centered generations, and the result therein. :-/

The advantages of democracy as a political system all assume that you have an educated and informed voter base making rational and logical decisions. Unfortunately, we have neither.

"Power to the people" is a wonderful concept, at least until you realize most people are stupid.

Hey guys what's the difference between a dead bab--*dragged off stage*

ParanoidObsessive posted...

"Power to the people" is a wonderful concept, at least until you realize most people are stupid.

One need only work in food service or retail, or play a healer in an online game, to know the honest truth.

Entity13 posted...

One need only work in food service or retail, or play a healer in an online game, to know the honest truth.

The problem is that politicians are just as bad if not worse than the general population

Muscles posted...

The problem is that politicians are just as bad if not worse than the general population

Agree, great post

Power to the robots

Muscles posted...

The problem is that politicians are just as bad if not worse than the general population

Take your typical, every day person. Give them a salary far higher than the poverty level and a faulty logic that, somehow, people working the jobs essential to the economy (at min wage or a pinch more) are also making as much. Then raise them to a pseudo-leadership position with zero leadership qualities. Now tell them the big companies, who cannot and must not fail, represent those people more than those peoples' own voices, and these individuals in power must cater to the big companies. I'd have said "or the churches," but religion runs itself like a business more than it does a guide of faith. Let this go for decades, and no! The people couldn't possibly know what they need or want. Also, thank you, mass media, or dividing the people, turning them on one another, so they're easier to bend, and unable to distinguish between what is necessary to a healthy society versus a threat to everyone..

*Raises glass* Salud.

Muscles posted...

The problem is that politicians are just as bad if not worse than the general population.

Yeah, but whose fault is that?

https://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.html

GIGO





...actually, the other problem there is that most politicians are very skilled... at getting elected. Because that's the only skill that actually matters when you're a career politician. A politician's actual job is to get elected and re-elected, not to understand complex concepts, solve problems, or improve the system in any way. Because they have no real motivation to do so.

If they can make a tangible positive difference and then spin that into something that people will vote for that's a plus - but it's just as easy for them to lie, manipulate public opinion, and use social engineering to convince people to vote for them, that's far easier and more effective.

Which also means that, when a problem is complex (which most major problems are) and requires complicated solutions that will take years/decades to see positive gains or which require significant short-term sacrifice (ie, the kind of thing that guarantees you probably won't get re-elected), most politicians won't even attempt to push for those solutions even if they do understand that they're necessary.

The system as it exists is essentially designed to guarantee no politician of any political alignment will ever do anything worthwhile without an ulterior motive.

So in a way, the American political system exists more to serve politicians than the communities they are tasked to oversee.

"Why would anyone care about basic rights being stripped from people?"

BlackScythe0 posted...

"Why would anyone care about basic rights being stripped from people?"

This.
If they get away with it, they'll strip away more until it eventually does affect you.

I mainly want to make sure that we keep it illegal to kill babies that are outside the womb and completely separated from the mother's body, because if we start allowing that, I don't know what's going to stop us from getting used to killing babies of a certain age, thinking that killing babies a little older can't really be that bad, until we're killing kids who are 5 years old or more. Regular abortion also has the potential to develop into that, but at least there you can say that abortion is different because pregnancy is so burdensome that a woman should always be able to opt out of it, which obviously doesn't apply once the baby is born.

OmegaM posted...

I mainly want to make sure that we keep it illegal to kill babies that are outside the womb and completely separated from the mother's body, because if we start allowing that, I don't know what's going to stop us from getting used to killing babies of a certain age, thinking that killing babies a little older can't really be that bad, until we're killing kids who are 5 years old or more. Regular abortion also has the potential to develop into that, but at least there you can say that abortion is different because pregnancy is so burdensome that a woman should always be able to opt out of it, which obviously doesn't apply once the baby is born.

Jesus

fuckin

christ

I care a great deal about keeping freedoms

I care about a womans right to do whatever she wants with her body, thats about it.

MICHALECOLE posted...

Jesus

fuckin

christ

Yeah, didn't you know that not banning abortion is a slippery slope to legalizing child murder?

In a general sense, somewhat. Its an important thing to have at least some understanding of what the two main sides are.

As for the specific American debate about it? Not even the tiniest fuck.

Personally I against abortion unless it's a pregnancy born out of rape or if something is genetically wrong with the baby but I also think that's personal business of the mother and father of the unborn child

Worlds overpopulated and too many kids in need of being adopted but aren't being adopted. Without even considering the moral arguments of her body her choice or it being baby killing. That's enough for me to be all for it.

I'm pro choice and anti sanctimonious Christians getting their morality from ancient mythology and prescribing it upon the rest of us. We live in a society and it is the current year.

Gaawa_chan posted...

I imagine you're tired of hearing about it because you think it won't impact you personally.

Abortion can literally never impact a male directly.

Revelation34 posted...

Abortion can literally never impact a male directly.

If they really wanted the kid the yeah it can. My best friend really wanted kids. A daughter specifically he got a girlfriend knocked up. They where living with her mother. She demanded an abortion cause neither him or the gf could support the child. He understood that but it really hurt him to go through with it. He even had a foster parent lined up that promised they could have the kid back once they where ready but that wasn't good enough for the gfs mom.

Revelation34 posted...

Abortion can literally never impact a male directly.

Not physically, and to that end the effect it has on men shouldn't supersede the woman's right to not be enslaved as breeding stock, but it can absolutely have an emotional impact. You shouldn't be denying that.

I think rev is doing that thing where he tries to use sarcasm

idk

It's hard to tell. His tendency toward ridiculous absolutisms means I generally assume any such statement he makes is genuine, whereas with others I would presume sarcasm.

OmegaM posted...

I mainly want to make sure that we keep it illegal to kill babies that are outside the womb and completely separated from the mother's body, because if we start allowing that, I don't know what's going to stop us from getting used to killing babies of a certain age, thinking that killing babies a little older can't really be that bad, until we're killing kids who are 5 years old or more. Regular abortion also has the potential to develop into that, but at least there you can say that abortion is different because pregnancy is so burdensome that a woman should always be able to opt out of it, which obviously doesn't apply once the baby is born.

That particular slippery slope fallacy is very easy to avoid with "just give the kid up for adoption." Once the kid's born, that's a pretty simple process and there's no basis to justify killing them instead of following that. Conversely, before the kid's born, the mother has to endure a whole lot of pain, cost, and outright danger to reach the point of being able to give them up for adoption, so there is a basis to justify not doing so.

adjl posted...

Conversely, before the kid's born, the mother has to endure a whole lot of pain, cost, and outright danger to reach the point of being able to give them up for adoption, so there is a basis to justify not doing so.

And that is assuming the kid and mother-to-be are both healthy, that the birthing process won't kill one or both of them, and so on.

I feel very strongly about it - my mother could be dead if she was forced to carry her previous pregnancy (before me) to term. I have heard many personal stories about other people's mothers in the US being forced to carry dead fetuses inside of them and give birth to them.

Entity13 posted...

And that is assuming the kid and mother-to-be are both healthy, that the birthing process won't kill one or both of them, and so on.

That's what I was going for with the "outright danger" bit. Especially in the US, pregnancy and childbirth have a significant mortality rate (3-4 times higher than that of the next-highest developed country), particularly among lower-income populations. Beyond mortality, there are many other potential health risks, particularly if the mother doesn't have access to proper prenatal care. A whole lot of anti-abortion folks seem to forget or ignore that pregnancy and childbirth are not trivial processes (that, or they see that suffering as a suitable punishment for daring to have sex).

To be clear, I am for keeping all abortions legal, on the assumption that pregnancy is such a burden that a woman should be able to opt out of it at any time. I just want to make sure we stop at that point and don't start allowing any "post-birth abortions", which at least a few people think would be a good idea:

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100411

Yes, babies who are just born probably aren't self-aware, but I worry that once everybody gets used to killing babies that are, say, up to a week old, people will start to think that babies slightly older can't be that much more self-aware, so why not kill them too, and so on.

I still think it's a pretty easy slope to stop sliding down. Killing a baby to avoid considerable physical pain and personal danger? Fair. Killing a baby to avoid paperwork? Not fair. If factors like having to pay to give a baby up for adoption become an issue (I admittedly don't really know how it works in the US), creating barriers that cause people to feel that infanticide is their only option, then the delineation becomes a bit harder, but that's an issue that's solved by removing those barriers.

Basically, after birth, the mother's bodily autonomy stops being an issue (at least, not in a way that's relevant here). The mother's bodily autonomy is the core issue behind the abortion debate, so if that's taken away from an otherwise-analogous situation, there's no longer room for debate in that case.