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

[KennyAtom]

If one doesn't support those programs, then they on;y support forcing life into this world and nothing else.

I mean, I'm pro life and I don't want to support those programs, but only because the government would fuck up the programs themselves, plus I already pay enough in taxes, I don't want to lose more of my hard earned money.

 

[smf]

At what point are we pretending fetuses aren't human? At some point they become human, but far sooner than that are they "routinely" aborted, when they're nothing more than cells. Anything after that is an active refute of broadly accepted science.

Ok, so on balance. When do you think abortions should be allowed up to?

 

[smf]

I mean, I'm pro life and I don't want to support those programs, but only because the government would fuck up the programs themselves, plus I already pay enough in taxes, I don't want to lose more of my hard earned money.

What should happen is anyone who is denied an abortion should have their all their childs expenses paid for by the government by raising taxes.

Problem sorted.

 

[The Catboy]

I mean, I'm pro life and I don't want to support those programs, but only because the government would fuck up the programs themselves, plus I already pay enough in taxes, I don't want to lose more of my hard earned money.

I like where I didn't say these needed to be government-funded or run but that's where you went. That being said, I would prefer my tax money to go to these programs over killing children for cheaper oil prices.

 

[KennyAtom]

I like where I didn't say these needed to be government-funded or run but that's where you went. That being said, I would prefer my tax money to go to these programs over killing children for cheaper oil prices.

I mean "programs" basically infers government funded. For example, Social Security is a program, Welfare is a program, and they are government funded, therefore this must be as well.

Also I'd much rather have cheaper oil prices then support babies being murdered.

 

[smf]

Also I'd much rather have cheaper oil prices then support babies being murdered.

Getting gas prices cheaper, killed babies & children. And had a measured increase in crime.

https://interestingengineering.com/thomas-midgley-jr-the-man-who-harmed-the-world-the-most

He knew how dangerous it was, because he became ill from lead poisoning.

FWIW Fetus only turn into a baby at birth. So abortion cannot kill a baby.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Ok, so on balance. When do you think abortions should be allowed up to?

It's hard for me to answer because on the one hand, I do agree with pro lifers to a point. I don't want to see abortion "as a convenience", even though I know that's not even remotely close to being an issue in general. On the other, I don't believe a risk to the mother should be taken just to birth a life, especially one that might come into a life of hardship (severe financial/ mental instability, drug addicted parents, etc) and, I mean who am I to say what a woman can do with her body? Even if I was a woman, how many abortions other women have is literally none of my business outside having the freedom to do so when necessary.

If we're talking in terms of how far along the life should be for abortion to be widely accepted, well... I'm not entirely sure, honestly. I just know that pro choice holds many more positive opportunities for all parties involved, so if the choice to abort is made, I would hope it's made as soon as possible.

 

[SyphenFreht]

I mean "programs" basically infers government funded. For example, Social Security is a program, Welfare is a program, and they are government funded, therefore this must be as well.

Also I'd much rather have cheaper oil prices then support babies being murdered.

Abortion clinics are privately funded. If we had more programs, government and privatized, that ensured people and children were actually taken care of, similar to what someone else mentioned earlier, the amount of abortions would drop drastically.

 

[The Catboy]

I mean "programs" basically infers government funded. For example, Social Security is a program, Welfare is a program, and they are government funded, therefore this must be as well.

Also I'd much rather have cheaper oil prices then support babies being murdered.

Fetuses aren’t babies. Still, you should support means to preventing abortions or helping people with their kids. Abortions are still going to happen regardless of your stance but the best means of preventing them is through proactive means. Punishment has been to not work at preventing abortions because even countries that punish miscarriages with death, still have abortions.
Programs can also be private, religious, community, and so on. I understand people might see them as government run but that’s not always the case. I actually help and advertise several programs helping people, none of which are government funded or run.

 

[smf]

It's hard for me to answer because on the one hand, I do agree with pro lifers to a point. I don't want to see abortion "as a convenience", even though I know that's not even remotely close to being an issue in general.

What do you mean by "as a convenience"?

I think we traumatize women enough from birth that the majority of women seeking abortions aren't doing it frivolously.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

What do you mean by "as a convenience"?

I think we traumatize women enough from birth that the majority of women seeking abortions aren't doing it frivolously.

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

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

 

[SyphenFreht]

What do you mean by "as a convenience"?

I think we traumatize women enough from birth that the majority of women seeking abortions aren't doing it frivolously.

Literally only in the sense that how many pro lifers view these situations. "Didn't want a kid? Too late now". "Boyfriend left you? Too bad, shouldn't have had sex". Stupid comments like that. I don't know. I probably didn't necessarily choose my words the right way. I can't foresee a woman ever getting an abortion as convenience, but I don't want that to ever become an issue, either. Like realistically, moreso than just assumed pro lifer mindsets.

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

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

That particular article stems from what is already prominently inherently pro republican website (bias does not equal fact), not to mention those statistics are from 6 states, not indicative of the greater population, and if I remember correctly those states in particular are pretty harsh on abortions in general, which means they most likely took very specific statistics from a particular subset of Americans that still doesn't represent the larger portion.

Good try though.

Edit*

I don't know why it took me three different glances to notice its a CHRISTIAN website, so... definitely some bias there, huh?

 

[AleronIves]

I care about other peoples children as much as I care about any other person. It's just not my job to raise other peoples kids or give them money to help them raise theirs.

What do you think should happen in cases of rape? Most of your arguments revolve around personal responsibility of the parents, but the woman is not responsible when she is impregnated against her will. Should she be forced to carry the baby to term, at which point the rapist is forced to carry all the responsibility of raising the child? What do you do if the rapist is never caught and cannot be held responsible for his actions? If your stance is that the woman is even partially responsible for the resulting life, that would seem to go against your "it's not my job to raise other people's kids or give them money" argument, because a rape victim bears no responsibility for that life, at least after birth, since she gave no consent for becoming a parent.

 

[SyphenFreht]

What do you think should happen in cases of rape? Most of your arguments revolve around personal responsibility of the parents, but the woman is not responsible when she is impregnated against her will. Should she be forced to carry the baby to term, at which point the rapist is forced to carry all the responsibility of raising the child? What do you do if the rapist is never caught and cannot be held responsible for his actions? If your stance is that the woman is even partially responsible for the resulting life, that would seem to go against your "it's not my job to raise other people's kids or give them money" argument, because a rape victim bears no responsibility for that life, at least after birth, since she gave no consent for becoming a parent.

Well here's his stance on responsibility...

If what the parents are doing is so wrong then why not focus on the parents? Why not encourage them to take responsibility for the life they create?

And we know orphanages are out...

It's just not my job to raise other peoples kids or give them money to help them raise theirs. If I want to donate I'll donate, but it should be my choice where the money goes.

I'm curious to know what the answer is myself.

 

[Foxi4]

At what point are we pretending fetuses aren't human? At some point they become human, but far sooner than that are they "routinely" aborted, when they're nothing more than cells. Anything after that is an active refute of broadly accepted science.

The desensitization comes from people having so much access to information all the time and often without filter, to the point where abolishing basic human rights becomes a normalcy. Without going off topic, the more one sees atrocities of any form, of any severity, the more they become immune to it. Yes, the same could be said about being pro abortion, but in light of stripping away the concepts that make already established people human? I'd much rather extinguish life before it becomes sentient than take away any sense of humanization an already established sentience already has.

I would argue that dehumanising the fetus (using terms like “clump of cells”, for instance) serves to desensitise in regards to the idea of terminating pregnancy. That was my only point. I hear it all the time, some acknowledgement of what’s actually going on would be more honest. I’ve touched upon this before in the thread.

By what means are preventative programs a problem? I don't see how my post is a leap as it addresses concerns that should be held. If someone doesn't support abortions, then they should support either means that prevent them or means that make having a child easier. If one doesn't support those programs, then they on;y support forcing life into this world and nothing else.

The idea that being against one thing automatically means being for another thing is a logical leap. It’s called a false dilemma - “either you’re for abortion, or you’re against children’s well-being”. Those are two separate issues - you can care about not terminating pregnancies, care about the well-being of the resulting children and recognise that they’re not your responsibility. The responsibility falls squarely on the parents.

 

[The Catboy]

The idea that being against one thing automatically means being for another thing is a logical leap. It’s called a false dilemma - “either you’re for abortion, or you’re against children’s well-being”. Those are two separate issues - you can care about not terminating pregnancies, care about the well-being of the resulting children and recognise that they’re not your responsibility. The responsibility falls squarely on the parents.

Then you only care about forcing a life into the world, it’s not a leap that’s just a matter of fact. If you don’t support programs that lower the need for abortions, then you don’t care about the children nor the parents. Sorry, not sorry

 

[Foxi4]

Then you only care about forcing a life into the world, it’s not a leap that’s just a matter of fact. If you don’t support programs that lower the need for abortions, then you don’t care about the children nor the parents. Sorry, not sorry

It’s the definition of a logical leap, actually. There’s a significant gap in your argument. To reiterate the previous analogy, most people care about other people not getting stabbed in the middle of the street. As such, we have moral objections in regards to murdering the homeless. That fact alone doesn’t mean that we must necessarily make an effort to reduce homelessness - we just don’t want to see them getting stabbed. We are not required to remove the homeless from the streets so that they don’t get stabbed - they shouldn’t be getting stabbed regardless. Those two things are disconnected. Your argument is no different. You don’t have to be “sorry” about it, I’m just pointing out that it’s not a logical argument - it’s just how you feel about the issue.

 

[SyphenFreht]

I would argue that dehumanising the fetus (using terms like “clump of cells”, for instance) serves to desensitise in regards to the idea of terminating it. That was my only point. I hear it all the time, some acknowledgement of what’s actually going on would be more honest. I’ve touched upon this before in the thread.

At what point is a baby, a baby, and not a clump of cells to you?

The idea that being against one thing automatically means being for another thing is a logical leap. It’s called a false dilemma - “either you’re for abortion, or you’re against children’s well-being”. Those are two separate issues - you can care about not terminating pregnancies, care about the well-being of the resulting children and recognise that they’re not your responsibility. The responsibility falls squarely on the parents.

Except in this case it's more being either pro-life, substantiating all life, regardless of current period of growth, and being pro-choice, meaning you believe people should have a choice in having an abortion or not. When you have someone claim they're pro-life, it's an accepted expectation to think that they mean all life, not just unborn fetuses. Maybe if people labeled themselves as pro-birthers and identified themselves as only caring about babies being born and not hiding behind tiny veiled constructs of pro-life lies, there'd probably be less confusion.

I’m just pointing out that it’s not a logical argument - it’s just how you feel about the issue.

Aside from religious background, isn't that how most pro-life supporters argue? Based on how they feel as opposed to logic?

 

[KennyAtom]

Then you only care about forcing a life into the world, it’s not a leap that’s just a matter of fact. If you don’t support programs that lower the need for abortions, then you don’t care about the children nor the parents. Sorry, not sorry

hey, would you kill homeless people? No? Then you better take them into your home and give them all your money, or you don't care about homeless people nor the homeless veterans who helped you keep your freedom. Sorry, not sorry

 

[AleronIves]

Then you only care about forcing a life into the world, it’s not a leap that’s just a matter of fact.

You're missing his point entirely. He's not talking about whether abortion should be allowed or not. He's saying that you shouldn't sugarcoat what's going on. A fetus is inevitably going to become a baby given enough time and lack of pregnancy complications, so calling it a "clump of cells" to make yourself feel better about killing it is intellectually dishonest. The fact that you're killing a human in the early stages of development cannot be denied, so don't try. The question is whether that fetus is enough of a person yet to make killing it wrong. There is widespread disagreement on the second point. There is no intellectually honest disagreement on the first.