U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[tabzer]

Yes it is.

If you think so. Ineffective programs exist.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/04/abortion-surpreme-court-women-map

https://theconversation.com/less-th...rd-trimester-heres-why-people-get-them-182580

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/better-birth-control-hasnt-made-abortion-obsolete/

Your argument about not liking statistics and being biased holds no weight considering a few comments ago you were denying the origins of racism in political parties despite evidence showing otherwise, showing your bias against Democrats and not liking the data that's been painfully abundant.

And yes, bias does not make good news. Is it news? Of course. Is it reliable? Well, it's a Christian website pushing a notably Christian agenda, and is primarily aimed at Christians. So yeah, I'd say more than happily that it's using doctored data to prove a point.

"It's probably in the top search results because it holds some weight"

Yeah, probably to the tune of paid advertisements. Try harder next time.

None of your sources give percentages on why women are having their abortion and that's what I linked to. Why did you link to them? They are irrelevant compared to the two sources I linked. I also have no intention on playing this game with you as no matter how many links I give you that are backed up by actual doctors and their data are going to pass because they help make my point. I'm also done speaking with someone like you that supports killing babies. You're now on my ignore list.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

I already assumed abortion was not an option, because I was directly asking you what you think should happen, and I already know that abortion is not an option you will accept. I'm asking you, "Since abortion is not an option in your view, what should the solution be in this situation?"

I've already answered that question and also the question you listed below in my previous replies. The baby isn't murdered, that's the solution.

Are you seriously saying that if the rapist cannot be located that the woman has to either raise the rapist's baby herself or with some other person? That sounds to me like you're violating your rule of "it's not my job to raise other people's kids or give them money to help them raise theirs". The man bears sole responsibility if the woman had no say in whether to become pregnant, yet you want her to take responsibility for the man's actions and raise/pay for his child.

Yes.

 

[SyphenFreht]

None of your sources give percentages on why women are having their abortion and that's what I link to. Why did you link to them? They are irrelevant compared to the two sources I linked. I also have no intention on playing this game with you as no matter how many links I give you that are backed up by actual doctors and their data are going to pass because they help make my point. I'm also done speaking with someone like you that supports killing babies. You're now on my ignore list.

The first link I posted literally has statistics as soon as you load the page. If you don't understand how to read statistics just ask someone. Hell, I'll even help you.

You have yet to link anything with any factual backdrop rooted in anything other than religious science.

Wow, I'm being ignored. There goes the rest of my day

It's ok though. I might support killing a fetus before it's technically alive, but at least I'm not a rapist sympathizer. Holy f*ck

 

[AleronIves]

Yes.

Right, so at the risk of being excessively snarky, I guess you're pro life, pro rapist, and anti woman. Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[The Catboy]

It’s rich that you speak of consequences when discussing abortion - a medical procedure explicitly designed to prevent facing the consequences of one’s irresponsible actions. Abortions of pregnancies resulting from rape, the only instance in which the woman had no say in the matter, constitute about 2% of the total, last I checked. In all other instances the woman made a series of poor decisions that led to her becoming pregnant. Your penchant for facing consequences is very selective, and only concerns the side of the argument you don’t like. Not that it matters anyway since complete strangers are not required to face the consequences of the action of other people. Slice the pie however you want - those are not my babies. For the sake of an argument, let’s say that I’m now vehemently against abortion - give me one *good* reason why I should pay for those kids? I didn’t even get to participate in the fun part, what gives? All I’m saying is that you shouldn’t be killing them - what you do with them is not my problem.

My argument is abortions should be safe, clean, and done by professionals. Anything less is only going to kill more people than help. And you are already paying for those kids the second they end up in the system. You are paying for them when parents need to go on government assistance. You are already paying for them, why not make it easier for these services instead of pretending their lives are less valuable? The only argument I am getting from you is that you don't really value other people.

 

[appleburger]

Rape victims being in the minority of abortion cases does not strengthen the pro-life stance. It's a moot point. Of the reported rape pregnancies we know about, it's roughly 25k-30k of these per year. That's a lot of people with a very horrible problem at hand, that directly relates to the abortion issue. And we all should know here that most rapes do not get reported.

To suggest these cases are irrelevant to the debate simply because it's the minority of reported cases, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater .

 

[AleronIves]

Yes, my point is that the solution to unwanted pregnancies must be applicable in all cases. The fact that abortions due to rape are a small percentage of overall abortions doesn't matter. If you say, "The woman has to carry and raise the rapist's baby, because abortions are wrong," well, now you're violating the rights of an adult to protect the rights of a fetus, which sounds pretty wrong, too.

 

[smf]

96.50% of abortions are done simply because its an convenience.

https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/

I'm surprised they didn't find it was 110%
Probably hoped it would look credible.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Right, so at the risk of being excessively snarky, I guess you're pro life, pro rapist, and anti woman. Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

I am pro-life. Rape is wrong. I'm not anti-women.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Rape victims being in the minority of abortion cases does not strengthen the pro-life stance. It's a moot point. Of the reported rape pregnancies we know about, it's roughly 25k-30k of these per year. That's a lot of people with a very horrible problem at hand, that directly relates to the abortion issue. And we all should know here that most rapes do not get reported.

To suggest these cases are irrelevant to the debate simply because it's the minority of reported cases, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater .

It's reverse whataboutism. Using a pretend statistic to reinforce a blanket law that protects no one, regardless of reasoning. Even if less 1% of all abortions are from rape, that's still not enough to enact a blanket law demonizing every decision. Every life counts, right? Except for those women who have direct need for an abortion?

I am pro-life. Rape is wrong. I'm not anti-women.

For not being anti women, someone certainly has a funny idea of how women should treated.

 

[smf]

well, now you're violating the rights of an adult to protect the rights of a fetus, which sounds pretty wrong, too.

You're violating the rights of a rapist to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy?

 

[smf]

to make yourself feel better about killing it is intellectually dishonest.

Calling it a baby when it's 9 weeks since conception is also dishonest

 

[SyphenFreht]

You're violating the rights of a rapist to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy?

Calm down bucko, it's being said... ironically? Either way, it's being called to an earlier comment by HeWhoPlacedMeOnTheIgnoreList implying that a woman who was raped now has less viability than the rape baby she's being forced to carry.

Because to force a woman to carry her rapists baby is being so pro-women it's progressive. /s

 

[smf]

For not being anti women, someone certainly has a funny idea of how women should treated.

You're surprised he has funny ideas?

 

[AleronIves]

You're violating the rights of a rapist to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy?

The woman is an adult, and you're violating her rights. I thought it would be obvious that I was talking about the woman's rights.

Calling it a baby when it's 9 weeks since conception is also dishonest

I didn't call it a baby. I called it a human in the early stages of development. You're correct that it's not a baby yet.

 

[SyphenFreht]

You're surprised he has funny ideas?

At this point I can't honestly be surprised at some of the responses I've seen on this thread alone. Non progressive people are baffling.

 

[tabzer]

At this point I can't honestly be surprised at some of the responses I've seen on this thread alone. Non progressive people are baffling.

I'm finding issue with your suggesting that carrying a baby to term (one that was a result of rape) is an act of sympathizing with rapists.

 

[SyphenFreht]

I'm finding issue with your suggesting that carrying a baby to term (one that was a result of rape) is an act of sympathizing with rapists.

Isn't it though? You can say all you want you sympathize for the baby, but the rapist, more often that not, gets off with little to no punishment, while the woman has to live with that product the rest of its life, hers is she dies first.

Where's her sympathy for having to be reminded every day what happened?

 

[Deleted member 559230]

I'm finding issue with your suggesting that carrying a baby to term (one that was a result of rape) is an act of sympathizing with rapists.

It's not. The rapist if he is found needs to pay child support for the duration of the child's upbringing. What would be best is that the rape never took place. It's shit situation to be in, but it's not the developing human's fault that it was created. The world is far from perfect and bad things happen, but that's no reason to murder a baby.