- Joined
- Nov 27, 2019
ah, i see that anti-abortionists are still pretending that fetuses are the same as sentient human children.
tag the people you want to mention instead of being a pussy.
They're not the same but they're still human.ah, i see that anti-abortionists are still pretending that fetuses are the same as sentient human children.
lol dilation and evacuationView attachment 3297624
An image I like to look at to remind me what [some kinds of] abortion looks like
is a watermelon seed a watermelon?They're not the same but they're still human.
Well, homelessness is a complicated issue, and there are plenty of ordinary, "responsible" people who face homelessness. For instance, maybe they do have a steady job, but the cost of housing in within commuting distance surpasses that which their salary can cover. I suppose the solution here is more affordable housing, more public transit, and fewer enormous parking lots that waste tons of space where housing could potentially be built. I agree with you that there's no reason why the medically infirm should be camped out on the street, particularly if they're elderly, veterans, or children.disagree. They condemn themselves by not being responsible or caring for themselves. There is a large argument to be made that many of these homeless ate incapable of caring for themselves and belong in state hospitals. I would happily let my taxes fund that.
I think we've got our wires crossed, here. Yes, undocumented immigrants are counted in census data because many of them pay taxes and use public resources like schools. However, "undocumented" is a bit of a misnomer, because most of them actually arrived here through the legal channel of a green card, only for the green card to eventually expire. Documents created in your country of origin don't vanish from existence the second you move to a new one. They still have birth certificates, passports, their countries' equivalent of a social security/identification number, etc., and applying for a green card requires that you supply that data. In fact, undocumented residents even have to sign up for Selective Service! Long story short, yes, a resident with an expired green card is very much a person in the eyes of the state, and they do have documents to substantiate their personhood. Fetuses do not.Neither do illegal immigrants but they are still people. Lie. People without socials do get tax ids, and there are multiple legal immigration statuses that don't earn you an SSN. That is on top of the fact that many state governments issue drivers licenses to non citizens and even illegal immigrants.
I said trafficking, not possession. Those are two different things. And in any case, my point was that neither abortion nor drug use should be crimes, because as you've said, they're a restriction on bodily autonomy. Same goes for the draft and Selective Service. I'm against all of those things for the same reason. I think your purpose in pointing this out was to insinuate that I'm a hypocrite for supporting autonomy in one case and opposing it in another, but that was predicated on the wrong assumption that I agree with those other, more "socially acceptable" forms of restrictions, but I'm not.banning the possession of drugs is a restriction on bodily autonomy. As are drug testing laws.
Many women cite needing to care for existing children as the reason for an abortion. 59% of women who have the procedure already have children. 62% consider themselves to be religious. These aren't wild college girls-- these are adult women with families, many of whom are in committed relationships. That same study found that 45% were married or cohabitating. Do expect people not to be sexually intimate with their long-term partners at all, especially when most men consider sex to be an important part of relationships? Birth control isn't perfect, and it isn't free (interesting that the people trying to outlaw abortions are the same ones that carved out exceptions for insurance companies to omit birth control coverage from their plans.)or choose to have sex, of which pregnancy is an extremely predictable outcome. Men don't get the choice of whether or not to support a child through child support, and i think that is fair, for the same reason. If you choose to have sex, you choose to accept the risks of having a child. with that said, i don't oppose exceptions for rape or incest.
I don't think it's a punishment at all. Most people change in ways they could have never imagined through being a parent. Ways that mature them and make them tougher far beyond what they could imagine they were capable of.
No, because she's a person in the eyes of the law. Your can't "abort" an undocumented immigrant, either, because they're legally people as well.Can i abort my ex wife for being a parasite? Can we abort welfare queens? No, that would be monstrous.
It really isn't though. That's extremely idealized.Well, homelessness is a complicated issue, and there are plenty of ordinary, "responsible" people who face homelessness. For instance, maybe they do have a steady job, but the cost of housing in within commuting distance surpasses that which their salary can cover. I suppose the solution here is more affordable housing, more public transit, and fewer enormous parking lots that waste tons of space where housing could potentially be built. I agree with you that there's no reason why the medically infirm should be camped out on the street, particularly if they're elderly, veterans, or children.
Just get scooped out if you dont want childrenah, i see that anti-abortionists are still pretending that fetuses are the same as sentient human children.
I strongly disagree about putting resources into "affordable" housing. People don't want to live around poverty, crime and unrest. People with enough money flee those areas and the property values of the area declines. This discourages further residential projects in the area by anyone but government. This punishes the property owners who stay and encourages more flight. Eventually what is left is an area full of people too poor to leave and undesirable to the people who have the means to improve it.For instance, maybe they do have a steady job, but the cost of housing in within commuting distance surpasses that which their salary can cover. I suppose the solution here is more affordable housing, more public transit, and fewer enormous parking lots that waste tons of space where housing could potentially be built. I agree with you that there's no reason why the medically infirm should be camped out on the street, particularly if they're elderly, veterans, or children.
We are going to fundamentally disagree on whether or not a fetus is a human being and that will make coming to total agreement impossible, but I understand the logic of your position. I wouldn't love it, but I could live with a compromise of abortion in the first trimester.I think we've got our wires crossed, here.
You're right, you did. My mistake on this one.I said trafficking, not possession. Those are two different things.
I find this argument to be morally detestable, but it comes from the fact that to me a fetus is a child and to you it's not. Poverty doesn't mean you get the right to start choosing which of your kids you let live and which you let die. Moreover, if you don't want more children, sterilization is an option for both partners. As is adoption.Many women cite needing to care for existing children as the reason for an abortion.
Abstinence is perfect and is free. Oral sex doesn't cause pregnancy. Anal sex doesn't cause pregnancy. If having another child would mean your family could starve, it's irresponsible to risk that for pleasure. Like to the point of being mental illness. Incels don't have an inherent right to have sex, nobody does.Birth control isn't perfect, and it isn't free (interesting that the people trying to outlaw abortions are the same ones that carved out exceptions for insurance companies to omit birth control coverage from their plans.)
There is so much blatant sexism in this part I don't even know where to begin. this applies to fathers who want their children too, but no mention of that. There are more single mothers in poverty because women by default are the primary custodian and it's incredibly difficult for a father to be given the same. They have to pay for lawyers, and have the luxury of taking a bunch of time off of work to drag their ex into court.This is when you set aside that fact that most people expected to pay child support just don't, at least not in full, and single mothers are way more likely to be living in poverty than single fathers. Lawyers aren't free, and not everybody has the luxury of taking a bunch of work off to drag their deadbeat ex to court.
Here are some consequences of not paying child support for men:You can blow off child support payments pretty easily.
Every state in the US allows parents to abandon their children at a hospital or fire station with no consequences. This is precisely to not force someone to care for another against their will.Caring for a thing that grew inside of you nine months, screams constantly, and that you'll be arrested for neglecting?
The other side of this entire screed you completely fail to mention is that men have no input into the abortion decision apart from choosing not to have sex. If the woman wants to have the baby and the father doesn't, he doesn't get a choice. He gets 18 years of child support obligations and to be called a deadbeat who isn't responsible for his children. If that same woman doesn't want the child and the father does, she gets to kill it without his input and he doesn't even get the choice of raising the child as a single father. They both made the choice to have sex. How can you honestly think this is fair?Not so much. In a perfect world where men actually cared for children they fathered as frequently as women do, maybe we wouldn't need abortion. But until the burden of caring for kids stops falling disproportionately on women, they need an out.
What are the standards for proving a rape occurred? Nothing changes.And what are the standards going to be for proving that a fetus is the product of rape?
Charge women who are caught lying about being raped with murder if they have an abortion and it's later proven they lied.What regulations would you put in place to prevent people from lying about being raped so they can obtain an abortion?
I hoped you would bring this up. This is exactly the argument for why conservatives don't want an exception for rape or incest. To get to the meat of your question I do still think it's killing a baby. But abortion is a fucking uncomfortable subject, and I can't bring myself to support forcing women who were raped, who didn't make any choices for herself in the matter to either carry the unwanted baby to term or face murder charges. Here is how I would handle the situation:Does the rapist have to have been someone found to be guilty of sexual assault in a court of law? And how is that not murder in your eyes? Does a baby cease to be a person to you when its conceived by rape? Are you aware that some of the state laws passed against abortion do not have exceptions in cases of rape and incest?
that was just snark on my part. The last part is not true at all. 3-5% of welfare spending is proven to be fraudulent. Like $1-3 billion per year that we know of. Most reports aren't investigated.Also, welfare queens are a Reagan-era myth, and welfare fraud is actually extremely rare.
I'll give a full reply later, but I had the same problem when replying to you-- there was no button at the bottom of the post. Not sure what that's all about, but I basically just did what you did and copy+pasted the text.I can't reply to you directly Bani but I will respond a bit here:
it's because our messages are so damn long haha.I'll give a full reply later, but I had the same problem when replying to you-- there was no button at the bottom of the post. Not sure what that's all about, but I basically just did what you did and copy+pasted the text.
Yes. There are also programs and lawyers that match expecting mothers with adoptive families. All good things.Netizennameless said:Every state in the US allows parents to abandon their children at a hospital or fire station with no consequences. This is precisely to not force someone to care for another against their will.
This is actually an urban myth. Women are awarded custody because men don't typically seek it. In the less common instances where fathers do seek custody, courts have shown to be deferential to them.Netizennameless said:There is so much blatant sexism in this part I don't even know where to begin. this applies to fathers who want their children too, but no mention of that. There are more single mothers in poverty because women by default are the primary custodian and it's incredibly difficult for a father to be given the same. They have to pay for lawyers, and have the luxury of taking a bunch of time off of work to drag their ex into court.
I have to give you credit, this is an interesting solution. It makes sense on paper certainly, but it relies on a much more effective criminal justice system than the one we have. First and foremost, there's the tricky-to-measure issue of women choosing not to report sexual assaults. Because rape is overwhelmingly committed by people known personally by victims, they often suffer social or career fallout for choosing to come forward, so they just don't. I suppose the potentiality of being forced to carry the baby to term would encourage more women to report, but it's impossible to know for sure. The other issue is that what women do report, their cases get stuck in bureaucratic hell; there is famously an enormous backlog of rape kits gathering dust in evidence rooms around the country. The sum of all of this is that less than one percent of rapes result in a conviction.Netizennameless said:What are the standards for proving a rape occurred? Nothing changes.
Charge women who are caught lying about being raped with murder if they have an abortion and it's later proven they lied.
I hoped you would bring this up. This is exactly the argument for why conservatives don't want an exception for rape or incest. To get to the meat of your question I do still think it's killing a baby. But abortion is a fucking uncomfortable subject, and I can't bring myself to support forcing women who were raped, who didn't make any choices for herself in the matter to either carry the unwanted baby to term or face murder charges. Here is how I would handle the situation:
1. If the woman is proven to have lied about being raped to obtain an abortion, she is charged with murder.
2. If the man is proven to have committed the rape and the woman has an abortion, he is charged with murder on top of rape. That will make it capital murder, and will come with a mandatory life without parole at minimum.
3. If the man is acquitted of rape or isn't charged, but the woman can't be proven to have been lying, nobody is charged with murder. However, there does need to be at minimum an accusation and a corresponding investigation opened to obtain an abortion.
We may not call the seed of a watermelon "a watermelon", but I would say that yes, watermelon seeds are the first stage of watermelon and therefore are a watermelon.is a watermelon seed a watermelon?
The same analogy should apply to fetuses.We may not call the seed of a watermelon "a watermelon", but I would say that yes, watermelon seeds are the first stage of watermelon and therefore are a watermelon.
A seed is just a seed until you go through the process of GROWING it.We may not call the seed of a watermelon "a watermelon", but I would say that yes, watermelon seeds are the first stage of watermelon and therefore are a watermelon.
Yes. There are also programs and lawyers that match expecting mothers with adoptive families. All good things.
However, I think it's important to note here that the average cost of giving birth in the United States is six-thousand dollars after insurance. Without insurance, that number climbs to thirteen thousand. That's a big chunk of change, even if you have nine months to save up for it.
Most of what we've been talking about is the legalization of abortion, but the criminalization of it is another story entirely. Suppose the doctor is on the hook for "murder" if he performs an abortion. Legally, it makes no sense to prosecute him exclusively, because he was performing a paid service to someone else-- if he committed murder, then the woman is guilty of solicitation to commit murder. There's no other way to slice it; if an abortion is functionally the same as murdering an adult, then all the same laws should theoretically apply.
There's also the argument (and I'm sure you've heard this before) that outlawing abortions doesn't prevent them, it just prevents safe ones, greatly increasing the rate of dangerous clandestine attempts.
This parallels the theory that outlawing guns just takes them out of the hands of "good guys," while criminals will find ways to obtain them anyway.
The takeaway here is that criminalization is not how you alleviate a systemic problem-- it's better to incentivize the public behavior your want than punish the kind you want to reduce. If we make the world a better place for women to give birth in, they'll seek fewer abortions, simple as. In the meantime, it ought to stay legal.