Life is the main cause of starvation.
Pro-Life without God
Posts
Total:
174
The pro-life position is hate and slavery.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What is the argument for this?
Best.Kirea: Life is the main cause of starvation.
You solution to end starvation would be to end life.
-->
@ahiyah
Do you actually believe what you're writing?
Yes, I do, but I think I understand why you have trouble believing that I'm writing my own beliefs.
A difference between you and I seems to be that I don't center my own experience as "normal" or "fact".
You said "It's just a fact that pregnancy is not harmful, because it does not result in harm to your body." Literally everyone knows this is not true. Pregnancy can and does result in harm sometimes. I'm happy it didn't harm you, but I know many women that it did harm. You've centered your own experience over the well-documented experiences of others in order to justify your position. Because for "It's just a fact that pregnancy is not harmful, because it does not result in harm to your body" to be true, that would mean every women that has reported a pregnancy-related harm is lying, every doctor that has signed deaths certificates of women who've passed away during labor is lying, every single dad raising the child that killed their wife is lying, and the list goes on.
My beliefs are difficult for you to believe because I see the world as it is, not as how I've experienced it. Because when someone, especially hundreds or thousands of someones, tell me something, I believe them even if it contradicts my current perception of the world.
If you think pregnancy causes harm to women, you should ask yourself why the planet is so vastly populated and how humankind has made it this far.
Really? Didn't study history much, did you? You think human history regarding pregnancy and childbirth is warm and fuzzy?
The chances of getting pregnant when using a contraceptive method like the injection, with your male partner also wearing a condom, are extremely slim.
I never said otherwise. I said it can and does happen. The way every pro-lifer has dismissed this reality is convincing me that one can only be pro-life by ignoring certain portions of the human population.
When birth control does fail because sometimes it does, I don't think it rational or logical to force someone to go through something they were clearly trying to avoid, especially when it will result in an unwanted child in a world swimming with unwanted children.
I never said it wasn't "most", I commented that support wasn't unanimous.
Your exact language was "most in this context seems excessive." It's not excessive if it's the literal definition of the word.
In Europe, the U.S is considered as being a nation where the population is truly divided on the matter of abortion, to the extent that it is acknowledged that significant numbers of people are highly likely to be against abortion.
Lol, this is true. I'm surprised you pointed out that most of our ally countries think we're insane for gutting abortion rights. I have friends in Saudi Arabia that have better access to abortion than I do and my Japanese friends think our instance on birthing regardless of consideration of circumstance is cruel and inhumane. The world does see us as highly divided but the world largely agrees with pro-choice Americans. In fact, since 2000 only two countries in the world have made abortion access more restrictive -- the US and Nicaragua. Every other country that implemented a change moved in the direction of less restriction. The global trend is pro-choice,
What will you say then, oh person who thinks that a consensus around suicide prevention can be compared to the (lack of) consensus around abortion?
I don't understand this question. I never spoke to a general consensus on suicide prevention, I shared my personal opinion.
That states have acted on Roe v. Wade no longer being in existence by changing their abortion laws *with* support from people living in those states,
This is false. The only state that has given the people a voice (allowing them to vote directly on the issue) is Kansas, and the majority voted to keep abortion legal.
Some of the laws in other states were left on the books for decades (nine states having laws left over before Roe even existed), before huge portions of the current population was even born, and triggered into effect by the overturn of Roe. Nearly 50% of Americans are millennials or younger, meaning roughly half the people living under pre-Roe trigger bans in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Wisconsin weren't even alive when the law was made. That isn't "support from the people living in those states". That's a power-hungry minority using convenience to their advantage.
If every state let their people vote today on whether or not abortion would be legal, that would be letting the people speak to what they support. And almost all, if not all, states would vote to make it legal.
A secondary issue is that it refers to children only, whereas I would like to know what you think of a conjoined twin who is an adult not giving their consent to a surgical separation. As previously stated, they could be disabled or unable to talk/write for whatever reason, but know that they do not want to undergo surgery and be separated.
Our conjoined twin conversation started because you were using it as an example of one person's bodily autonomy being forcibly sacrificed in favor of another. In your example, where two adults are conjoined, one wants to be separated. I'm confused on your perception of the second. I believe you're telling me that the second twin has somehow, despite their disability, clearly communicated their desire to not be separated, meaning we have two adults in disagreement. Like every other adults with disagreements, they'll need to talk it out and come to an understanding. I don't understand how you think this relates to abortion, as a pregnant person is unable to talk it out and come to an understanding with the fetus. A more appropriate example would be that the second twin is completely unable to communicate and we therefore have no idea if they want to be separated or not. If that were the case we would have no way of knowing if separation or remaining joined would violate the autonomy of the second twin, as they can't communicate with us.
These parents want to save at least one child so they can look after it, and so are prepared to lose one to save the other one.
So if we have child A and child B, it's okay to risk the life of child A to help child B. But if we have child C and adult D, it is never right to risk the child to save the adult? I thought we'd established that adults and children have the same value, not that one is more valuable than the other?
-->
@Uragirimono
If every state let their people vote today on whether or not abortion would be legal, that would be letting the people speak to what they support. And almost all, if not all, states would vote to make it legal.
- I don't really care what the majority of people would think, I just see it as one of the continuous harms of democracy. Unfortunately, there were periods of human history where slavery was supported by the majority of people. These both seem like descriptive claims from which normative conclusions cannot necessarily be derived. That being said, it seems to me that most people would become pro life if they actually rationalized the issue.
-->
@Novice_II
That being said, it seems to me that most people would become pro life if they actually rationalized the issue.
I take it you think none of my previous comments are rational then? I'd be interested to know your thoughts.
I just see it as one of the continuous harms of democracy.
This interests me too. What other harms of democracy do you see? What form of government do you think would work better?
-->
@Bones
Hence me saying, quite accurately, you would support killing a literal child who is past 9 month at development with the only justification being that some chord is still attached to its mother is just a fundamental disagreement.
Where is your quote from? I'd like to read the original source since you've yet to answer my question on whether or not this baby is alive before the D&E.
It would be born, but under the pro-choice position, you would forbid that (just as how you forbid 24 week unborns to be killed) and instead let it be aborted, correct? It's a simple yes or no. If the above circumstance is given to you, and the unborn is perfectly healthy but the mother does not want to go through with the very painful pregnancy, would you allow the doctor to pull the child half way out and dismember its chest?
I don't understand this at all. Pro-choice forbids nothing, it allows the person capable of choice to make the choice. So for a simple "yes or no", no, I would forbid nothing and let mom decide with appropriate medical guidance. If mom 'doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy' then there's no chest to dismember as it hasn't had time to develop. If there is a chest to dismember and the fetus is still alive, it'll just be born. Where are people aborting fully formed fully healthy fetuses on week 38? Does being pro-life hinge on these "examples" that don't happen?
Well now you are creating a wholly different situation to the one being discussed. I am talking about perfectly healthy unborn children and you are comparing it to those who are in the situation where they could have a plug pulled, implying they are probably comatose.
If it's perfectly healthy, then it can go be perfectly healthy without the use of my body.
If it will die without my body, then it is akin to a child on life support (ie, unable to survive without life-sustaining assistance) which we already allow parents to make decisions about. I'm sorry you don't like that, but it is the current fact of our world -- parents get to make ALL medical choices for their children, even ones that put the child's health at risk.
Since you generally seem so concerned about the autonomy of children, I hope you speak out against child abuse, school shootings, sex trafficking, and other things that put born children in danger as fervently as you speak out for the nonexistent autonomy of the unborn.
-->
@Athias
Gotcha, thanks.
I do agree abortion is a moral issue but it's also a legal one.
So you can see from my comment I don't see morality and law as exclusive. Morality undoubtedly shapes law, but there is a distinction between the two. We morally tend to agree that lying is wrong, but we only make laws for those that lie in court and not when children lie to their parents. We morally tend to agree that cheating is wrong, but we make laws about cheating in the stock market and not cheating at board games. We morally tend to agree that stealing is wrong, but we make laws about grand larceny and not a kid slipping money from grandma's purse.
I think the central difference between what we leave as moral questions and what we deem as concerns for the law is impact -- the number of people affected, the gravity of the effect overall, and the implication to society as a whole. We don't make laws about children lying because rarely are a great number of people are affected on a large scale and society sees minimal long term impact. We make laws about people lying under oath because it effects everyone involved in the trial and challenges the authority of the court.
So specifically for abortion, there's 100% a morality concern. Moving it into the legal sphere moves it into a larger realm of thought. Pro-choicers typically don't care what your morality is -- believe and do whatever you think is best for your family. The point of contention for pro-choicers is when pro-life people bring the issue (which only affects the family of the fetus in question) into the larger realm and start dictating their own morals through the mouthpiece of government. That's why it feels so all or nothing for us. If we live in a pro-choice society, then both sides of the argument get to make the best decision for their families. If we live in a pro-life society, no one gets to make what they believe is the right choice except the minority in power.
I also think it's important to note that law typically reflects the demographic in power more so than the given country at large. This makes it especially harmful when the demographic in charge plows ahead without consideration for other demographics, because they're inherently making into law their own flavor of morality, often at the expense of another flavor of morality. That's how things like systemic racism come about -- not through crazy racists shouting slurs but through decades, even centuries, of laws being made to cater to white morality while ignoring the moralities of other people groups.
-->
@Uragirimono
I take it you think none of my previous comments are rational then?
- I don't know if I even understand what you are asking for/implying. If I take it that you want me to state a logical problem with anything you said, that may not be true inherently unless there is an internal contradiction. This can be the case, however I don't know as of now whether or not there is one yet. If there is not an internal contradiction, and the position just leads to conclusions which I am satisfied will deter people from accepting those views, that could also lead me to conclude that if most people rationalized the issue they would become pro life.
What other harms of democracy do you see?
- The situation you described is an instance of the continuous harms of Democracy's predication: majority control. Other examples of this in the past have been with slavery, segregation, certain wars etc. Personally, I don't know what form of would be better, I just interpret very obvious harms of Democracy that exist currently, and remain open towards looking for ways to control them.
-->
@Uragirimono
Hence me saying, quite accurately, you would support killing a literal child who is past 9 month at development with the only justification being that some chord is still attached to its mother is just a fundamental disagreement.Where is your quote from? I'd like to read the original source since you've yet to answer my question on whether or not this baby is alive before the D&E.
They are alive. How does them being dead make any logical sense? Why would you need to stab them if they're already dead? Again, because you are prevaricating and attempting to hide from my argument, I'll re-quote it again.
So then you support the doctor, if they chose chose, Dilation and Extraction, a variant of dilation and evacuation (D&E) whereby the aborted fetus is delivered intact instead of in pieces. Politically, it is known as partial-birth abortion. To provide further context, if the baby is delivered feet first, the head is crushed with forceps or pierced with scissors (allowing the brain to be suctioned out by vacuum aspiration). If the baby is delivered head first, scissors are used to pierce the top of the head as soon as it appears at the cervical opening. To position the baby in a D&X abortion, the NAF recommends using Hern forceps. They have "fewer and smaller teeth"–which are "especially useful when traction or rotation of an intact fetus is desired (instead of dismemberment)." Hence me saying, quite accurately, you would support killing a literal child who is past 9 month at development with the only justification being that some chord is still attached to its mother is just a fundamental disagreement.
It would be born, but under the pro-choice position, you would forbid that (just as how you forbid 24 week unborns to be killed) and instead let it be aborted, correct? It's a simple yes or no. If the above circumstance is given to you, and the unborn is perfectly healthy but the mother does not want to go through with the very painful pregnancy, would you allow the doctor to pull the child half way out and dismember its chest?I don't understand this at all. Pro-choice forbids nothing, it allows the person capable of choice to make the choice.
Okay, change forbid to allow then, happy? You would allow a mother to make the decision (just as how you forbid 24 week unborns to be killed) and allow for them (the 9 month old unborn) be aborted, correct
So for a simple "yes or no", no, I would forbid nothing and let mom decide with appropriate medical guidance.
Well we disagree then. The fact that you would allow a 9th month abortion seconds before it would otherwise have been born into the world is quite frankly disgusting.
If mom 'doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy' then there's no chest to dismember as it hasn't had time to develop.
In 9 month abortions there is certainly a chest.
If there is a chest to dismember and the fetus is still alive, it'll just be born.
So you are saying that if there is a) a chest and b) a live fetus, you wouldn't allow for an abortion to occur. You say that "it'll just be born" but what if the mother doesn't want the baby to be born because the act of giving birth is too painful? You you allow an abortion then?
Where are people aborting fully formed fully healthy fetuses on week 38? Does being pro-life hinge on these "examples" that don't happen?
I'm just testing for your consistency. And yes, these cases happen.
Well now you are creating a wholly different situation to the one being discussed. I am talking about perfectly healthy unborn children and you are comparing it to those who are in the situation where they could have a plug pulled, implying they are probably comatose.If it's perfectly healthy, then it can go be perfectly healthy without the use of my body.
Well you created it so it's your responsibility. That's like if a mother gave birth to a child and decided he was crying to much, and subsequently kills the child. Sorry but, a decision has been made and you have to go through with it.
If it will die without my body, then it is akin to a child on life support (ie, unable to survive without life-sustaining assistance) which we already allow parents to make decisions about.
What if the child is 17 and we know that in 9 months time they will become a fully healthy human being?
Since you generally seem so concerned about the autonomy of children, I hope you speak out against child abuse, school shootings, sex trafficking, and other things that put born children in danger as fervently as you speak out for the nonexistent autonomy of the unborn.
I absolutely do so your red herring is null.
Dear Shila,
Ending all life on Earth would bring many benefits. Yes, one of them would be ending starvation.
This exchange sort of reinforces to me how crazy the pro choice position is. Bear in mind, it could be the case that Uragirimono is just not arguing his/her position well, but to me this seems like the general paradigm of arguments given for abortion.
-->
@Novice_II
Personally, I don't know what form of would be better, I just interpret very obvious harms of Democracy that exist currently, and remain open towards looking for ways to control them.
I see the logic to this, but calling something a "harm of democracy" means nothing other than revealing your own sense of morality. You say slavery was a harm of democracy. If I thought slavery was a good thing, I would see emancipation as a harm of democracy and so on. You can certainly call things you disagree with "harms of democracy" but it contributes little to the reality people are living in.
If there is not an internal contradiction, and the position just leads to conclusions which I am satisfied will deter people from accepting those views, that could also lead me to conclude that if most people rationalized the issue they would become pro life.
Translation: If it's logical but leads to conclusions people won't like, then most people will ignore what they don't like in favor of what they do, regardless of truth.
I do agree with you there. It is all over this thread. No major revelation there.
Democracy is one form of the system of government.
However, the only system of government that really exists is government from power.
It doesnt matter how its called. Democracy in todays form only exists because those with power sustain it.
To translate: There is only power, and those too weak to obtain it.
-->
@Bones
When I said I wanted to talk to pro-lifers without religion, I genuinely thought I would get away from the braindead lines of thought conservative Christians use. I am surprised to discover that braindead people exist outside the realm of religion. Let me point out everywhere you have ignored reality.
How does them being dead make any logical sense? Why would you need to stab them if they're already dead?
Dude. Babies die in utero. How do you think they get dead babies out of a mother? You would need to stab an already dead baby to get it out of mom before it kills her. I am well aware of what a D&E is, apparently more so than you, because I know it is a procedure often used to remove a dead or dying baby from inside mom. That's why the status of the baby matters. You still haven't given me your source and you've only thrown out that the baby is alive to make your point. You want the baby to be alive because it sensationalizes your point. You can't just pick and choose details of a situation to cement your point. It 100% matters if the baby is dead or alive prior to the D&E.
What if the child is 17 and we know that in 9 months time they will become a fully healthy human being?
How do you think this supports your point? If a child is 17 they are still a child and still under their parent's legal authority. It works this way for everything.
We don't let people smoke at 17 years and 3 months. They have to be 18.
We don't let people drink at 20 years and 3 months. They have to be 21.
We don't let people sleep with a minor that will be an adult in 9 months. They have to be an adult first.
There is no scenario in which what you will be in 9 months is more important or relevant than what you are right now. Just like an embryo is an embryo and not the child it will be in 9 months.
but what if the mother doesn't want the baby to be born because the act of giving birth is too painful . . . I'm just testing for your consistency. And yes, these cases happen.
Show me one documented case where a woman carried to the last week of her pregnancy and then said "meh, screw it, let's kill the baby." I guarantee you you will not find one.
If a woman doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy she's not going to wait until she's already gained the weight, developed gestational diabetes, her bones have shifted, she now pees 6 times an hour, and hasn't pooped in 3 weeks before terminating. At that point she's already gone through pregnancy. You can't say "well she doesn't want to go through the pain of birth" because there's no pain free way to get a 9 month old fetus out of a woman. All her choices that far along will be painful. No abortion in the history of ever has been done because mom wanted to avoid the pain of a vaginal delivery. At most, they would deliver the baby via C-section (ie, BIRTH IT) instead of vaginally.
If an abortion is happening very late in the pregnancy it is 100% a wanted child, probably one already with a name. Something is wrong medically with the baby, or the delivery will be a tremendous risk to mom, and now the family must make an impossible decision. A decision, in fact, which will be not be benefitted from your uneducated opinion.
Additionally, do you have such a low opinion of doctors that you think they'd agree to stab a baby that would otherwise be born next week even if for some bonkers reason mom wanted to?
Why does being pro-life require fabricating dramatic situations that literally never happen while repeatedly ignoring ones that happen frequently? On this thread I have been told that pregnancy causes no harm (blatantly false) and that mothers are routinely offing their babies two days before their due date for no other reason than funsies (blatantly false). I've been told we stab baby chests just because mom doesn't want to go through a pregnancy, ignoring the scientific fact that if a chest exists to stab then the pregnancy has already been gone through. I thought I would hear from non-religious pro-lifers with a level of logic usually decimated by religion, but it's the same emotionally charged garbage that ignores how the world works scientifically just for the chance to get to tell women if they don't use their bodies the way you deem fit they're terrible human beings. We can 100% have different morality but we can't have different facts.
Sorry but, a decision has been made and you have to go through with it.
You don't believe this. Or I guess, if you do, it amuses me greatly. I assume you don't believe this because, if you stick to your own morality and if you're not actively trying to become a parent, that means you aren't actively having sex. The idea that no one on the pro-life side is getting laid unless they're trying to become parents would explain why they all seem to be so angry though. Because remember, we've established that even if birth control fails, you consented to being a parent by getting undressed. So either you really believe this and only have sex in an attempt to become a parent, or you don't believe this (as you have sex without the intent of parenthood) and you're a hypocrite.
Another thing you say and dno't truly believe: embryos and born children are equal in worth.
Let's say you're trapped in a building that's on fire. To your left is a room with an eight year old. To your right is a room with 40 stored embryos. No one on this thread, in the heat of their instincts, is going to think saving those 40 embryos is the right choice. Everyone, without fail, will go for the living child because we all instinctively know that an actual person is more valuable than a potential person, or even 40 potential people. If the person trapped in the fire was the mother of the 8 year old as well as the 40 embryos, we would all expect her to save her actual child over her potential children. The only time we ever say "that embryo is the same as an 8 year old" is during abortion debates because pro-life is apparently predicated on the idea that women making their own choices is an evil, selfish act and we have to vilify her as much as possible.
The entire point of pro-choice is "Reproduction is a morally gray area, and one that's full of difficult decisions. Because of this difficulty, no one should get a say worth more than that of the mother, as she is the being capable of making a choice that will be most affected by said choice." Pro-lifers believe this too, because they would lose their minds if the government legally required them to abort the child they wanted . Pro-lifers understand the government's place is not my uterus, but they're okay with using the government to proscribe their holier-than-thou attitude onto other people because it makes them feel good about themselves and because the unborn are the easiest group on the planet to abdicate for, as long as you're willing to ignore a little bit of science.
Best.Korea: Democracy is one form of the system of government.However, the only system of government that really exists is government from power.It doesnt matter how its called. Democracy in todays form only exists because those with power sustain it.To translate: There is only power, and those too weak to obtain it.
You are more of an Authoritarian/Totalitarian than you are a communist.
Dear Shila,
Thank you for calling me a totalitarian. It warms my heart.
I think that only I am right and that everyone else is wrong.
This makes sense to me.
-->
@Uragirimono
Let me point out that for one, Bones is asking you to answer a specific question, he is not asking you whether or not this scenario is common. It could be that there is some disconnect here, because I did not see an answer, and I suspect that would be helpful for the continuity of that conversation. Now, I don't know what more to add on the democracy issue, while it seems we may be slightly talking past one another, if you think slavery is a good thing...I don't know what else to tell you.
Why not cut to the chase and give me your actual syllogism argument for abortion, and then we can see what to make of it?
-->
@Uragirimono
Can't be bothered going back and forth with you because clearly, you have zero intent of an actual conversation (Novice is right to point out, I'm asking you a thought experiment which your position entails, not at all arguing that it is common or that it would even happen).
Accept if you want, I doubt you will, but if not then the conversation is over.
Best.Korea: Dear Shila,Thank you for calling me a totalitarian. It warms my heart.I think that only I am right and that everyone else is wrong.This makes sense to me.
So why are you tolerating all those around you that are wrong? Everyone here is talking about democracy.
I think Uragirimono pretty much won the debate here simply for mentioning democracy.
You cant be in favor of democracy and at the same time oppose to the action of making abortion legal.
Most of the people support abortion being legal. Hence, abortion is to be legal.
Unless you dont want democracy.
Of course, personally I prefer dictatorship of my own. But I cant help noticing that most people who support democracy are also opposing to it any time it doesnt suit their disgusting world view.
Uragirimono has fine arguments. But I wouldnt recommend accepting the debate since voters are mostly drug addicts.
Dear Shila,
I do what I want. And I always assume my decision is right. So when I tolerate, I assume I am right in doing that. Since I always agree with myself, this is a really simple process.
So why are you tolerating all those around you that are wrong? Everyone here is talking about democracy.
Best.Korea: Dear Shila,I do what I want. And I always assume my decision is right. So when I tolerate, I assume I am right in doing that. Since I always agree with myself, this is a really simple process.
So you are a rare tolerant totalitarian. That’s new!!
-->
@ahiyah
@Uragirimono
Suppose for example 1 out of every 4 kids,
Stopped growing up, remained the same,
Mentally, physically,
Don't you think we would treat them different?
Educate them different?
Have different expectations of their future?
Of late term abortions, I'd suggest,
Though arguably he doesn't fall under what the mainstream Pro Choice are advocating,
And this article is more Pro Choice friendly, pointing out flaws in using him as an example for being Pro Life instead of Pro Choice.
But I mention this, as I'd suspect it's what many Pro Life are afraid of,
They're afraid of the slippery slope of society changing it's morality.
People 'claim slippery slope fallacy,
But I don't think slippery slope is a fallacy myself.
Pro Life is afraid of the people who 'don't care about viable late term abortions, and I think there 'are people who don't care about late term abortions.
There are modern people who beat their newborns to death because they can't stand the screaming.
Recall antiquity, it's a mistake I'd argue, to say morality can only go upwards,
Really I think it goes side to side, but that's not my point.
Though this is likely cherry picking on my part,
And 'not something I'm holding up as evidence as occurring everywhere all the time.
You 'did say
"Show me one documented case where a woman carried to the last week of her pregnancy and then said "meh, screw it, let's kill the baby." - #136 Uragirimono
I'd actually agree with Uragirimono, that pregnancy is/can be harmful does/can cause long term effects.
Though it's not something I'm well read on.
-->
@Uragirimono
Yes, I do, but I think I understand why you have trouble believing that I'm writing my own beliefs.A difference between you and I seems to be that I don't center my own experience as "normal" or "fact".
You don't think pregnancy and childbirth are normal occurrences?
You said "It's just a fact that pregnancy is not harmful, because it does not result in harm to your body." Literally everyone knows this is not true. Pregnancy can and does result in harm sometimes. I'm happy it didn't harm you, but I know many women that it did harm. You've centered your own experience over the well-documented experiences of others in order to justify your position.
lol, I still can't believe you're making arguments THIS stupid. Saying that pregnancy does not result in harm to your body is a *factual* thing to say because in the majority of instances, it does not. It is extremely rare for women to die during childbirth, but is the norm for women to birth their child and not be harmed during this process.
I know women who had difficult births and almost died (my own mother was close to that), but I'm still able to ankowledge that childbirth is generally very safe.
Moreover, we do other things that are demonstrably harmful all the time. If harm is a problem for you, why don't you just lock yourself away forever? If you go out, you may be at risk of harm!
Isn't drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes harmful? I'm assuming you've partaken in at least one of those before. Also, if you've ever had sex without the use of a condom, you could have acquired a sexually transmitted disease. Maybe, that disease could be something as bad as the human immunodeficiency virus. I would say that this is more harmful than a woman giving birth.
You seem to think that we can live in a world where everyone should just believe you, or not question you when you say you have been harmed. At least that is what you're arguing. I struggle to think you could be so silly as to believe that though.
If I say I have been harmed and am using that harm to further an agenda, should you take my word for it? Don't you think you should investigate whether I truly was harmed first?
Claims don't = truth. A person's subjective experience doesn't equate to objective reality.
Really? Didn't study history much, did you? You think human history regarding pregnancy and childbirth is warm and fuzzy?
I think that women, overall, were able to give birth and survive this ordeal. If that was not the case, no one would exist and the human race would have died out.
Many women died, but more women survived. And now, we live during a time that a woman's health is monitored thoroughly during pregnancy and the risks to her are incredibly well-managed. They see their doctor and midwife regularly, they have options as to how they want to birth their baby, have access to pain relief during that birth, and constant medical observation when labor does occur. Giving birth is in fact more safe than going out in your car each day.
When birth control does fail because sometimes it does, I don't think it rational or logical to force someone to go through something they were clearly trying to avoid, especially when it will result in an unwanted child in a world swimming with unwanted children.
You've made quite a drastic claim here, and I can't help but ask you to consider the questions it has raised for me.
What does it matter to you if children are unwanted, and is being unwanted really a reason to have ended their existence? Don't you think that child will ever be able to find love or happiness? What if they become a great person?
Honestly, you don't get to decide what children are wanted or not, and whether your perception of them being unwanted is a reason for them to have not existed. A more empathetic response would be to help children, as opposed to advocating their non-existence.
You think the world is "swimming" with unwanted children, but on what grounds exactly? I really want to know more about these children who are apparently unwanted, and how this is so much of a problem that you've felt the need to use words like "swimming". This would suggest to me that you may think this issue is widespread.
Your exact language was "most in this context seems excessive." It's not excessive if it's the literal definition of the word.
The way you interpreted and then applied "most" in this context is what constitutes excessive. Percentages matter, and it's not as if it's a small minority of people who are against abortion and a large majority of people who are for it.
Lol, this is true. I'm surprised you pointed out that most of our ally countries think we're insane for gutting abortion rights.
Why surprised? I never said that I thought your "ally countries" are right to be pro-abortion, or that they are even desirable places to live. I personally think that the U.S is a much nicer place to live, and I assume this is why Europeans move there. If I had to compare the U.S to my country, I would say that without a doubt, the U.S is better. Wages are better, free speech is better, education (I think) is better, it is more geographically diverse, and is fairly cheap (in comparison to my country) in many areas. Countries that criticize the U.S for dispensing with Roe v. Wade ought to look at their own problems, which in my view are great and many.
I have friends in Saudi Arabia that have better access to abortion than I do and my Japanese friends think our instance on birthing regardless of consideration of circumstance is cruel and inhumane. The world does see us as highly divided but the world largely agrees with pro-choice Americans. In fact, since 2000 only two countries in the world have made abortion access more restrictive -- the US and Nicaragua. Every other country that implemented a change moved in the direction of less restriction. The global trend is pro-choice,
If we consider this in a global context, abortion is a controversial issue in *many* countries.
Really? If your friends in Saudi Arabia have better access to abortion than you, I can only conclude that they or their babies have/had physical or mental impairments because those are the only instances where abortion is allowed. If there is no risk to the mother's life, it is illegal in Saudi Arabia. Other countries in the Middle East and North Africa are even more strict than that, so your little comeback here has failed monumentally.
As for Japan, I don't think we should really be using that place as an example for anything. Over there you are required by law to get your waistline checked annually once you reach a certain age...don't you think that violates bodily autonomy because it undermines the right of people to be fat, if they want?
Not everything is perfect with respect to their abortion laws either:
In terms of how other countries view abortion, there are a significant number that have strict rules.
Laws regarding abortion are diverse. As of 2021, there are twenty-four countries in which abortion is illegal in any and all circumstances.
In 37 countries, abortion is illegal unless it saves the mother's life. In other countries, it is illegal unless used to save the mother's life or preserve her health during pregnancy.
Many countries, if they do allow abortion without there being a risk to the mother's life, only allow it up to 12 weeks.
This is false. The only state that has given the people a voice (allowing them to vote directly on the issue) is Kansas, and the majority voted to keep abortion legal.
According to the Guardian, abortion could be banned all across the U.S if the Left doesn't stand up and do something:
Seventeen states have banned abortion. There is strong support for this in all of those states.
If you really want to know how many people are against abortion in every U.S state, you can view this source:
As for our conjoined twins example, I think I make it fairly clear that in the second example the latter twin *could* have difficulty communicating their desire to not be separated from the former twin. The purpose of this example is to get you to see that just because another being cannot voice their opinion, it doesn't mean we should take it upon ourselves to make decisions for them because we feel those decisions will benefit us. Women are not only deciding their own future when they have an abortion, but are also getting to decide whether another human lives or dies, and are doing so in an extremely casual manner.
If we're really going to look at this with an open mind, perhaps I could make an argument for the fetus wanting to live *if* it is moving around. While it may not be able to talk, its movements that can be seen on an ultrasound *and* felt by you, could significy an unconscious desire to live.
It sounds strange (given my petite frame it makes sense to me), but I started feeling my second baby move very, very early on. With my son it was about 18 weeks, but with my daughter it was 14 weeks as she was my second baby, and you can feel them move earlier on (although this WAS early). She was moving regularly each day, and I could FEEL it. If I was of a mind to get an abortion, I could take that as a sign that there is a real, and growing, human life inside me, and that it may well want to live.
Regarding children and adults having equal value, I have decided that as a parent, I have less value than my children. I would even say that every child, and certainly baby, has more value than me.
-->
@Lemming
"Can be" harmful and "is" harmful are two different things. It is far more normal for a pregnancy to not be harmful, and for your attachment to your child to outweigh any potential harms.
-->
@ahiyah
Cesarean scars,
Stretched skin,
Gained weight,
Chance of death during birth,
Morning sickness,
Temporary immobility,
Pregnancy gingivitis,
Obstetric fistula,
Many more I imagine, and I'll admit I don't know statistics on them, chance/percents.
Some are temporary, others medicine overcomes, others overcomable through effort.
-->
@Lemming
Cesarean scars,
Since when are they harmful?
Stretched skin,
Again, since when is this harmful?
Not all women get stretched skin either...I didn't, or if I did it went back to normal.
Gained weight,
Not all women gain a lot of weight.
Also, you can easily lose weight.
Chance of death during birth,
Would you say that life-saving operations are harmful? There's a chance of death during those too.
Morning sickness,
Not every woman gets this. I didn't have it at all in my second pregnancy.
I would also note that it's only a temporary harm.
Temporary immobility,
lol, whaaat?
Pregnancy gingivitis,
Only temporary, and doesn't happen to every woman.
Obstetric fistula,
Very uncommon.
Many more I imagine, and I'll admit I don't know statistics on them, chance/percents.Some are temporary, others medicine overcomes, others overcomable through effort.
"Some" aren't even harms at all.
In addition, are any of these perceived harms more important than your child? For instance, if a woman had to choose between having cesarean section scars or her child/children, which do you think she would choose?
-->
@ahiyah
Harm is a vague word,
A person's looks/quality of life, are harmed by scars, by excess skin, weight,
Weight 'can be lost, but it's not always easy for people.
Some life saving operations 'do carry risks, but usually the individual being operated on 'chooses those risks,
And there 'are risks everywhere in life, but the chance and degrees vary,
Not everyone is effected the same by pregnancy I'd agree,
Some situations 'are temporary,
But pain and discomfort 'still isn't something people want inflicted on them by others, 'even if temporary.
Some people lose teeth from gingivitis, uncommon as you say though.
. . .
For some people , the perceived harms are a greater consideration than an unborn at X stage of development.
I also find it more difficult, to consider an unborn sacred, the further back in development it goes,
As I do not believe in souls,
Though I still think even an embryo, is a new unique life, myself.
People also don't like receiving lottery tickets for harm, even if the chance of harm is low,
Or people who ''do hit the misfortune jackpot.