I got a legitimate question for you @Balrog99 (and anyone else who wants to answer). Percentage wise, how would you like your tax money distributed then?
I'm not going to speak for him, but the typical #1 answer is national defense. Which is fine, as far as that goes. Except we already spend more than $40 billion dollars more than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, the United Kingdom and Japan COMBINED. So in the event that every single one of those disparate nations teamed up to take us on, we'd still have them licked.
Sorry @jjstraka34 but there's no way our #1 expense should be the military. We'd make Nazi Germany look like choir boys if we spent that much. My 10% is likely too high seeing as we don't even spend that much now. That's why I threw intelligence in that category too. I just didn't feel like getting too specific and say 6.25%.
The human rights situation in Xinjiang is even worse than I thought. The Chinese government is kidnapping random Uighurs, a majority-Muslim ethnic group mostly concentrated in western China, and detaining them indefinitely in internment camps for indoctrination purposes, forcing them to engage in humiliating self-criticism sessions, listening to lectures on Communist ideology, and chanting pro-Party songs. The process has occurred without due process of law, it's separated families, and there's no process for releasing detainees. Government officials have claimed there is no re-education program, a transparent lie.
It's gotten to the point where the Chinese Communist has security cameras installed in mosques and people are getting detained for growing beards or stopping smoking for fear that it indicates Islamic radicalism. The Communist Party is trying to stamp out what little religious freedom is left in the country.
@LadyRhian I don't think you were here for the last abortion discussion we had, but I'm gonna level with you. Believe or not, we have common ground. In the event of a life threatening pregnancy, an abortion can be necessary. I can't imagine the heartache of having to choose between your life or the life of your spouse, and the life of your child. I will never presume to make that choice for anyone else, and my heart breaks for every person in that situation.
Specifically, where I take issue, is the idea that someone can get an abortion simply to avoid responsibility for the life that you have created.
@LadyRhian In that case, your Bonobo example does nothing for your pro-abortion argument. Masturbation and homosexual coupling cannot result in giving birth. So its useless in an abortion discussion.
Actually, the comment about Bonobos was in reaction to @semiticgod's comment that Chimpanzees might be just as interested in humans about non-procreative sex, nothing else.
I also fail to see the correlation between not wanting to kill children and killing animals. Its a false equivalence. What exactly do you think is the result of a human-human pairing? I've seen a person give birth to a velociraptor. De-humanizing your victim is the only way you can justify murder to yourself.
According to law, even in the laws of the Bible, an unborn child is not the same as a human. Doesn't have the same rights, doesn't have the same penalty if killed.
“When there’s a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt, the one responsible has to pay whatever the husband demands in compensation. But if there is further damage, then you must give life for life—eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
@BallpointMan "I believe your question was already answered by this: "
See my response above.
"Unless, of course - it isnt murder. Doesnt need justification that way. Side note - maybe dont accuse a fellow forumite of championing mass murder? Seems in bad taste at least. I wont speak to it being against forum rules or not, since I'm not an authority in them."
So, what would you call the killing of large numbers of children?
A fetus is not a child until it is born, under the law. So it isn't the killing of a child.
Also, I know the conversation has moved on from here, but, a woman is 14 times more likely to die from carrying a baby to term than she is from having an abortion. Thus, abortion is somewhat safer than carrying a baby to term.
"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.
Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.
Dr. Elizabeth Raymond from Gynuity Health Projects in New York City and Dr. David Grimes of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, found that between 1998 and 2005, one woman died during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born.
That compared to one woman of every 167,000 who died from a legal abortion."
Making abortion illegal doesn't stop them from happening. It just makes it more likely for the person carrying the baby to die. Unless, of course, that is what people want to happen. I don't consider killing women because they would rather not consider carrying a child to term to be a feasible or better option.
@LadyRhian I don't think you were here for the last abortion discussion we had, but I'm gonna level with you. Believe or not, we have common ground. In the event of a life threatening pregnancy, an abortion can be necessary. I can't imagine the heartache of having to choose between your life or the life of your spouse, and the life of your child. I will never presume to make that choice for anyone else, and my heart breaks for every person in that situation.
Specifically, where I take issue, is the idea that someone can get an abortion simply to avoid responsibility for the life that you have created.
Avoid responsibility? People rarely think about "avoiding responsibility" as a reason for having an abortion. Can't take care of an infant, Can afford to raise it. And in a good number of cases "Having the baby would wreck my health, making me unable to care for such a child". I know someone who had to have anabortion because it would ruin her back. She wanted the baby, but she literally *had* to have an abortion or wind up in the hospital for years, leaving her unable to work or care for said baby. And when she went in for it, anti-abortion protesters outside called her a whore, called her a baby killer and similar epithets. She had the abortion *and* a nervous breakdown.
I just don't see this issue in black and white. I can't. I've had too many friends and relatives who have been harmed by these attitudes about women and abortion. And so I should probably bow out at this point. I am close to losing my cool about this.
@LadyRhian Sure we can end the discussion if you wish. I'll post my reply to your latest comment in a different comment so you aren't tagged in it.
I don't know if it would matter at all, or be wanted; but you can tell your friend that at least one pro-lifer understands the horrific choice she had to make and doesn't judge her at all for the hard choice she made.
"Actually, the comment about Bonobos was in reaction to @semiticgod's comment that Chimpanzees might be just as interested in humans about non-procreative sex, nothing else."
Okay, misunderstood the reasoning. Thanks for clarifying.
"According to law, even in the laws of the Bible, an unborn child is not the same as a human. Doesn't have the same rights, doesn't have the same penalty if killed.
“When there’s a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt, the one responsible has to pay whatever the husband demands in compensation. But if there is further damage, then you must give life for life—eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." "
If i had a dollar for everytime someone quoted the Old Testament law as if it still applied, I could retire right now. Its the Old Testament for a reason. No part of the Mosaic law applies as of Jesus' ministry.
"A fetus is not a child until it is born, under the law. So it isn't the killing of a child."
So, are you making the argument that the law is always right? Because I'm sure I could find many many laws that you disagree with. Law does not equal right. They can overlap, but are not equivalent.
"Avoid responsibility? People rarely think about "avoiding responsibility" as a reason for having an abortion. Can't take care of an infant, Can afford to raise it. And in a good number of cases "Having the baby would wreck my health, making me unable to care for such a child". I know someone who had to have anabortion because it would ruin her back. She wanted the baby, but she literally *had* to have an abortion or wind up in the hospital for years, leaving her unable to work or care for said baby. And when she went in for it, anti-abortion protesters outside called her a whore, called her a baby killer and similar epithets. She had the abortion *and* a nervous breakdown."
I seem to recall the initial argument put forth here was that a woman should have the right to abortion for any reason. Not wanting a child being one of those reasons. So yes, avoiding responsibility. I also don't see how the story above is at all a rebuttal of my stance. I specifically said that in cases of life threatening pregnancy, a choice needs to be made about which life to save. Spending years in a hospital bed as the best case scenario seems to indicate life threatening to me. Its compulsive vs. elective abortion.
I mentioned the other night the gathering of sheriffs who cheered Trump's attacks on the media the night the NYT Op-Ed came out. Well, the Guardian looked into the background of those assembled law enforcement leaders, and found some mighty disturbing reasons why that may be. This "a few bad apples" line of thinking needs to end, or nothing will ever change. These are the LEADERS of their departments:
Embezzlement, installing spyware, witness intimidation, false statements about the killing of a dog, stealing funds, bullying subordinates, hiding evidence, embezzlement again, harassment, deputies charged with drug crimes and criminal neglect of children, and deputies committing sexual assault against female inmates. All of which were reported by the press.
Some of these sheriffs are apparently full-blown criminals. I can see why they'd object to the media that exposed their crimes.
That being said, the article only discussed the backgrounds of 10 of the sheriffs, out of about 40.
The reasons that abortions occur has been studied and has remained relatively consistent for a long time. The biggest reasons are money and career reasons with a bit of a self image issue. I reject these reasons as morally justifiable reasons for abortion.
Cases of a real medical concern for the life of the mother or rape I do agree with the moral arguments for, but these are not common reasons.
What is defined as irresponsible or responsible is ultimately subjective. If someone doesn't want to consider something as irresponsible they won't. To me, " having relationship problems" or "not ready to have a child" or "I can't afford it" are irresponsible reasons to end a growing persons life forever, that you knew you were at risk of creating when you decided to take the actions you did.
But whatever your definition of basic responsibility is, even taking responsible action doesn't justify ending anothers life unless you are in serious fear of your own life. That is my view anyway, and typically how we define when it is ethical to kill someone else in other areas of life as well.
"The three most common reasons—each cited by three-fourths of patients—were concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability to afford raising a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents. Half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with their husband or partner."
"The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents."
The reasons that abortions occur has been studied and has remained relatively consistent for a long time. The biggest reasons are money and career reasons with a bit of a self image issue. I reject these reasons as morally justifiable reasons for abortion.
That's fine, but do you see it morally justifiable to force another person to carry a child against their will? If so, why? How would that even be accomplished? Like @LadyRhian said, outlawing abortions is only going to drive it underground and make it unsafe.
The reasons that abortions occur has been studied and has remained relatively consistent for a long time. The biggest reasons are money and career reasons with a bit of a self image issue. I reject these reasons as morally justifiable reasons for abortion.
That's fine, but do you see it morally justifiable to force another person to carry a child against their will? If so, why? How would that even be accomplished? Like @LadyRhian said, outlawing abortions is only going to drive it underground and make it unsafe.
The "morally justifiable" argument cannot be taken seriously coming from a group that advocates the murder of children. There is no moral highground there. As for carrying children to term, why not have some gov. incentives? Tax breaks for being what is essentially a surrogate for 9 months. Special gov insurance that would cover medical expenses for the pergnancy, and cover any fees and provide a lawyer to fill out any paperwork to put the child up for adoption after birth. We have the resources to do it, its all a matter of will.
The reasons that abortions occur has been studied and has remained relatively consistent for a long time. The biggest reasons are money and career reasons with a bit of a self image issue. I reject these reasons as morally justifiable reasons for abortion.
That's fine, but do you see it morally justifiable to force another person to carry a child against their will? If so, why? How would that even be accomplished? Like @LadyRhian said, outlawing abortions is only going to drive it underground and make it unsafe.
The "morally justifiable" argument cannot be taken seriously coming from a group that advocates the murder of children. There is no moral highground there. As for carrying children to term, why not have some gov. incentives? Tax breaks for being what is essentially a surrogate for 9 months. Special gov insurance that would cover medical expenses for the pergnancy, and cover any fees and provide a lawyer to fill out any paperwork to put the child up for adoption after birth. We have the resources to do it, its all a matter of will.
That's kind of gross. It reminds me of the Axlotl tanks in the Dune novels. I'm not pro-abortion by any means but forcing a woman to carry somebody else's baby is not a great option. As a middle-ground, how about free morning-after pills? That alone would cut down the amount of fetus abortions that I personally find objectionable. If the egg doesn't implant in the uterus it surely isn't a viable human-being. If somebody is so irresponsible as to not take the morning-after pill then I have no answer for that...
Yes, that is gross. @ThacoBell if you're simply going to say you are right and other people are wrong without explaining why, there is no discussion. Why is it right to force a woman to lend their body to be a surrogate for 9 months? Would it also be morally right to make a man's body surrogate if the baby had a dysfunctional organ for example?
Bonus question: Where in the bible does it say abortion is wrong?
The reasons that abortions occur has been studied and has remained relatively consistent for a long time. The biggest reasons are money and career reasons with a bit of a self image issue. I reject these reasons as morally justifiable reasons for abortion.
That's fine, but do you see it morally justifiable to force another person to carry a child against their will? If so, why? How would that even be accomplished? Like @LadyRhian said, outlawing abortions is only going to drive it underground and make it unsafe.
The "morally justifiable" argument cannot be taken seriously coming from a group that advocates the murder of children. There is no moral highground there. As for carrying children to term, why not have some gov. incentives? Tax breaks for being what is essentially a surrogate for 9 months. Special gov insurance that would cover medical expenses for the pergnancy, and cover any fees and provide a lawyer to fill out any paperwork to put the child up for adoption after birth. We have the resources to do it, its all a matter of will.
That's kind of gross. It reminds me of the Axlotl tanks in the Dune novels. I'm not pro-abortion by any means but forcing a woman to carry somebody else's baby is not a great option. As a middle-ground, how about free morning-after pills? That alone would cut down the amount of fetus abortions that I personally find objectionable. If the egg doesn't implant in the uterus it surely isn't a viable human-being. If somebody is so irresponsible as to not take the morning-after pill then I have no answer for that...
Morning after pill does have some adverse effects(Hopefully everyone can see this site, it is Canadian). Free Oral Contraceptives may be better but may also give rise to STDs.
And this is my favourite line from that site that sells morning after pills:
"The idea here is to not need plan B® again. The best plan is deciding with your doctor which long-term method of contraception is right for you."
It then goes on to list 10 contraceptions a woman can choose from, and then list 6 places where you can learn more about sexual health.
Education, and not shaming, is the best way prevent situations like this.
The reasons that abortions occur has been studied and has remained relatively consistent for a long time. The biggest reasons are money and career reasons with a bit of a self image issue. I reject these reasons as morally justifiable reasons for abortion.
That's fine, but do you see it morally justifiable to force another person to carry a child against their will? If so, why? How would that even be accomplished? Like @LadyRhian said, outlawing abortions is only going to drive it underground and make it unsafe.
The "morally justifiable" argument cannot be taken seriously coming from a group that advocates the murder of children. There is no moral highground there. As for carrying children to term, why not have some gov. incentives? Tax breaks for being what is essentially a surrogate for 9 months. Special gov insurance that would cover medical expenses for the pergnancy, and cover any fees and provide a lawyer to fill out any paperwork to put the child up for adoption after birth. We have the resources to do it, its all a matter of will.
That's kind of gross. It reminds me of the Axlotl tanks in the Dune novels. I'm not pro-abortion by any means but forcing a woman to carry somebody else's baby is not a great option. As a middle-ground, how about free morning-after pills? That alone would cut down the amount of fetus abortions that I personally find objectionable. If the egg doesn't implant in the uterus it surely isn't a viable human-being. If somebody is so irresponsible as to not take the morning-after pill then I have no answer for that...
Morning after pill does have some adverse effects(Hopefully everyone can see this site, it is Canadian). Free Oral Contraceptives may be better but may also give rise to STDs.
And this is my favourite line from that site that sells morning after pills:
"The idea here is to not need plan B® again. The best plan is deciding with your doctor which long-term method of contraception is right for you."
It then goes on to list 10 contraceptions a woman can choose from, and then list 6 places where you can learn more about sexual health.
Education, and not shaming, is the best way prevent situations like this.
Yikes! That's a pretty high occurrence of side effects. Not quite the way it was advertised...
The Bible also says eating shellfish is prohibited and that we should stone adulterers to death. If we start following it's rules by the letter, society would devolve into a massive, constant version of Shirley Jackson's short story "The Lottery". It would make "The Purge" look like a trip to Disneyland.
@FinneousPJ Its a theoretical answer to your specific question.
"That's fine, but do you see it morally justifiable to force another person to carry a child against their will? If so, why? How would that even be accomplished? Like @LadyRhian said, outlawing abortions is only going to drive it underground and make it unsafe."
So, where exactly in my example was ANY MENTION of forced carriage? I'd appreciate if you could point it out. You'll notice that I specifically used the phrase "incentives", as in, make it worthwhile for someone to CHOOSE to carry the baby to term. Please don't put words in my mouth.
As for the Biblical example. @Yulaw9460 is partially correct. In Exodus it was said that someone who harmed a pregnant woman, and she lost her child as a result, they would have to pay reparations to the mother. Any damage done to the mother herself would be visited upon the attacker. Again though. Mosaic law is no longer a requirement, so its not a great example for contemporary morality. A better example would be "Thou shalt not kill".
I agree with @deltago that education is the best way going forward to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
So, where exactly in my example was ANY MENTION of forced carriage? I'd appreciate if you could point it out. You'll notice that I specifically used the phrase "incentives", as in, make it worthwhile for someone to CHOOSE to carry the baby to term. Please don't put words in my mouth.
No offense, but this is HIGHLY ironic - you've consistently accused anyone who is Pro-choice of being "Pro abortion" as if these things are the same (they're not. We've said that they're not. I've politely asked you to stop multiple times).
The "morally justifiable" argument cannot be taken seriously coming from a group that advocates the murder of children. There is no moral highground there. As for carrying children to term, why not have some gov. incentives? Tax breaks for being what is essentially a surrogate for 9 months. Special gov insurance that would cover medical expenses for the pergnancy, and cover any fees and provide a lawyer to fill out any paperwork to put the child up for adoption after birth. We have the resources to do it, its all a matter of will.
You are not the arbiter of what is "morally justifiable". What you consider to be justifiable is not what everyone else considers to be justifiable. If the argument was as completely black and white as you believe it to be, there wouldnt be something like a small plurality of people in the USA that are Pro-Choice, and an even larger group of people (a majority, last I checked) that support Roe v. Wade.
@BallpointMan Okay, do you want to explain to me how its not pro abortion?
"If the argument was as completely black and white as you believe it to be, there wouldnt be something like a small plurality of people in the USA that are Pro-Choice, and an even larger group of people (a majority, last I checked) that support Roe v. Wade."
Well, no. People are exceedingly good at justifying ANYTHING to themselves. Theft, murder, slavery, racism. You can find proponents for literally anything.
@BallpointMan Okay, do you want to explain to me how its not pro abortion?
Because it isnt? I am not *for* having abortions. I am not FOR someone going through that process. I do not think it's a positive good and that "everyone should have one". That would be "Pro-abortion". I am, however, pro-choice. Which is to say - that while I'd prefer if there were 0 abortions in a year, I am against the restriction of a woman's right to choose when to keep and when to terminate a pregnancy.
It is remarkably intellectually disingenuous to assume that because someone thinks that there should be a legal way to avoid punishing women for not wanting to keep a pregnancy, that this person is "pro abortion". It's also deeply offensive when that label is used to critique their morality.
Bear in mind that the only person whose views you are qualified to describe is yourself. No one is qualified to say "This is what you believe." We are only qualified to say "This is what I believe."
This principle is stated in Rule 1 at the start of the thread:
As for the Biblical example. @Yulaw9460 is partially correct. In Exodus it was said that someone who harmed a pregnant woman, and she lost her child as a result, they would have to pay reparations to the mother. Any damage done to the mother herself would be visited upon the attacker. Again though. Mosaic law is no longer a requirement, so its not a great example for contemporary morality. A better example would be "Thou shalt not kill".
Actually, Exodus says someone who harmed a pregnant woman and caused a miscarriage would have to pay reparations to the *husband*, not to the mother. Because the Bible considers a woman property of her father (if unmarried) or husband (if married).
The idea that we should base any modern law on what is in a book of what essentially amounts to ancient folklore is something we may never be able to truly escape from, and it's frankly depressing as hell. No one ever suggests we make laws based on Greek mythology, yet somehow the Bible is viewed as some kind of document that has unique wisdom. I realize most people do not believe our laws should be based on it, but a hell of alot of people DO, and vote accordingly. I think the ground gave out from under me sometime in my mid-teens when I would be reading passages during the sermon at church and I was being treated to stories about people turning into pillars of salt and living inside the belly of a whale for weeks at a time. And I realized it was no different than Medusa turning people traversing into her lair into stone. That Goliath might as well be Polyphemus. And that the basic Christian vision most people have in their head of God is basically Zeus.
Mind you, it would be perfectly fine for anyone to worship Greek gods and goddesses. I just find it hard to believe anyone who did so would insist that society be based on their beliefs. Only the 3 major religions seem to have this kind of overwhelming arrogance to them.
The idea that we should base any modern law on what is in a book of what essentially amounts to ancient folklore is something we may never be able to truly escape from, and it's frankly depressing as hell.
I agree. I asked because one passage was simply ejected without offering another one. Finally an another one was offered which has nothing to say on abortion. I'm looking for the motivations here...
@FinneousPJ Its a theoretical answer to your specific question.
"That's fine, but do you see it morally justifiable to force another person to carry a child against their will? If so, why? How would that even be accomplished? Like @LadyRhian said, outlawing abortions is only going to drive it underground and make it unsafe."
So, where exactly in my example was ANY MENTION of forced carriage? I'd appreciate if you could point it out. You'll notice that I specifically used the phrase "incentives", as in, make it worthwhile for someone to CHOOSE to carry the baby to term. Please don't put words in my mouth.
As for the Biblical example. @Yulaw9460 is partially correct. In Exodus it was said that someone who harmed a pregnant woman, and she lost her child as a result, they would have to pay reparations to the mother. Any damage done to the mother herself would be visited upon the attacker. Again though. Mosaic law is no longer a requirement, so its not a great example for contemporary morality. A better example would be "Thou shalt not kill".
I agree with @deltago that education is the best way going forward to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
What's the difference between removing the choice not to carry and forced carry? I guess I don't understand what you're advocating for.
@BallpointMan Okay, do you want to explain to me how its not pro abortion?
Because it isnt? I am not *for* having abortions. I am not FOR someone going through that process. I do not think it's a positive good and that "everyone should have one". That would be "Pro-abortion". I am, however, pro-choice. Which is to say - that while I'd prefer if there were 0 abortions in a year, I am against the restriction of a woman's right to choose when to keep and when to terminate a pregnancy.
It is remarkably intellectually disingenuous to assume that because someone thinks that there should be a legal way to avoid punishing women for not wanting to keep a pregnancy, that this person is "pro abortion". It's also deeply offensive when that label is used to critique their morality.
i'm pro-abortion and don't have a problem with this formulation. if a woman decides that it's what she wants, under no circumstances will i think that abortion is wrong or evil, and since it's generally good when people are free to decide on important private matters without outside interference, each individual abortion can only bee good - unless it's not actually what a women wants or it's something that hasn't been thought through. for that purpose, every women who wants to have an abortion should have access to free counselling/brief psychotherapy.
@FinneousPJ "What's the difference between removing the choice not to carry and forced carry? I guess I don't understand what you're advocating for." There isn't. But did you actually read what I wrote? Its a hypothetical situation where someone was given incentives, should they CHOOSE to carry the baby to term. Again, I invite you to point where exactly in this example that choice is removed.
"I agree. I asked because one passage was simply ejected without offering another one. Finally an another one was offered which has nothing to say on abortion. I'm looking for the motivations here..."
Except it did. "Thou shalt not kill" Abortion is ending a life (Unless we want to change the argument from a feetus isn't human, to a fetus isn't alive).
@AstroBryGuy "Actually, Exodus says someone who harmed a pregnant woman and caused a miscarriage would have to pay reparations to the *husband*, not to the mother. Because the Bible considers a woman property of her father (if unmarried) or husband (if married)."
People keep quoting the Old Testament as if that is all the Bible is. I get it, the OT is easier to criticize, but its also been rendered outdated by Jesus' ministry. You know, the CHRIST that the term CHRISTIAN comes from.
@BallpointMan I'm glad you don't personally think abortion is good, but I've talked to a lot of people like @bob_veng above, who do. Its also very telling that when requested, I provided a hypothetical scenario where a woman who choose to carry a baby to term for sake of its life or her conscience would recieve assistance and incentives to remove some of the burden, I was immediately lambasted for "forcing women to carry a baby", which was nowhere in my example. So its very clear what the "choice" in "pro-choice" actually means. Your view, in my experience, is the minority. So yes, "pro-aborition" still seems completely accurate.
@BallpointMan I'm glad you don't personally think abortion is good, but I've talked to a lot of people like @bob_veng above, who do. Its also very telling that when requested, I provided a hypothetical scenario where a woman who choose to carry a baby to term for sake of its life or her conscience would recieve assistance and incentives to remove some of the burden, I was immediately lambasted for "forcing women to carry a baby", which was nowhere in my example. So its very clear what the "choice" in "pro-choice" actually means. Your view, in my experience, is the minority. So yes, "pro-aborition" still seems completely accurate.
I'm not against general welfare policies for mothers. They are very commonplace, very noncontroversial, and people who would be provoked like that by your suggestion sound pretty silly.
In every developed country there are different programs of this sort. If a women knows that she will be receiving some form of support after giving birth, and still decides to have an abortion, I wouldn't hold it against her, as I couldn't know that it would have been better for her to have had the child after all.
How I see things there is the pro-abortion camp, the anti-abortion camp and the undecided camp. Pro-choice and pro-life are silly products of political branding. I've never had a pleasant conversation on this topic with anyone who declared themselves either "pro-choice" or "pro-life", because it seems to me that these ideological sectarians can't get past cheap rhetorical moves.
Comments
It's gotten to the point where the Chinese Communist has security cameras installed in mosques and people are getting detained for growing beards or stopping smoking for fear that it indicates Islamic radicalism. The Communist Party is trying to stamp out what little religious freedom is left in the country.
Specifically, where I take issue, is the idea that someone can get an abortion simply to avoid responsibility for the life that you have created.
“When there’s a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt, the one responsible has to pay whatever the husband demands in compensation. But if there is further damage, then you must give life for life—eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." A fetus is not a child until it is born, under the law. So it isn't the killing of a child.
Also, I know the conversation has moved on from here, but, a woman is 14 times more likely to die from carrying a baby to term than she is from having an abortion. Thus, abortion is somewhat safer than carrying a baby to term.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-abortion/abortion-safer-than-giving-birth-study-idUSTRE80M2BS20120123
"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.
Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.
Dr. Elizabeth Raymond from Gynuity Health Projects in New York City and Dr. David Grimes of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, found that between 1998 and 2005, one woman died during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born.
That compared to one woman of every 167,000 who died from a legal abortion."
Making abortion illegal doesn't stop them from happening. It just makes it more likely for the person carrying the baby to die. Unless, of course, that is what people want to happen. I don't consider killing women because they would rather not consider carrying a child to term to be a feasible or better option.
I just don't see this issue in black and white. I can't. I've had too many friends and relatives who have been harmed by these attitudes about women and abortion. And so I should probably bow out at this point. I am close to losing my cool about this.
I don't know if it would matter at all, or be wanted; but you can tell your friend that at least one pro-lifer understands the horrific choice she had to make and doesn't judge her at all for the hard choice she made.
Okay, misunderstood the reasoning. Thanks for clarifying.
"According to law, even in the laws of the Bible, an unborn child is not the same as a human. Doesn't have the same rights, doesn't have the same penalty if killed.
“When there’s a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt, the one responsible has to pay whatever the husband demands in compensation. But if there is further damage, then you must give life for life—eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." "
If i had a dollar for everytime someone quoted the Old Testament law as if it still applied, I could retire right now. Its the Old Testament for a reason. No part of the Mosaic law applies as of Jesus' ministry.
"A fetus is not a child until it is born, under the law. So it isn't the killing of a child."
So, are you making the argument that the law is always right? Because I'm sure I could find many many laws that you disagree with. Law does not equal right. They can overlap, but are not equivalent.
"Avoid responsibility? People rarely think about "avoiding responsibility" as a reason for having an abortion. Can't take care of an infant, Can afford to raise it. And in a good number of cases "Having the baby would wreck my health, making me unable to care for such a child". I know someone who had to have anabortion because it would ruin her back. She wanted the baby, but she literally *had* to have an abortion or wind up in the hospital for years, leaving her unable to work or care for said baby. And when she went in for it, anti-abortion protesters outside called her a whore, called her a baby killer and similar epithets. She had the abortion *and* a nervous breakdown."
I seem to recall the initial argument put forth here was that a woman should have the right to abortion for any reason. Not wanting a child being one of those reasons. So yes, avoiding responsibility. I also don't see how the story above is at all a rebuttal of my stance. I specifically said that in cases of life threatening pregnancy, a choice needs to be made about which life to save. Spending years in a hospital bed as the best case scenario seems to indicate life threatening to me. Its compulsive vs. elective abortion.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/08/sheriffs-donald-trump-media-scrutiny?CMP=share_btn_tw
Some of these sheriffs are apparently full-blown criminals. I can see why they'd object to the media that exposed their crimes.
That being said, the article only discussed the backgrounds of 10 of the sheriffs, out of about 40.
Cases of a real medical concern for the life of the mother or rape I do agree with the moral arguments for, but these are not common reasons.
What is defined as irresponsible or responsible is ultimately subjective. If someone doesn't want to consider something as irresponsible they won't. To me, " having relationship problems" or "not ready to have a child" or "I can't afford it" are irresponsible reasons to end a growing persons life forever, that you knew you were at risk of creating when you decided to take the actions you did.
But whatever your definition of basic responsibility is, even taking responsible action doesn't justify ending anothers life unless you are in serious fear of your own life. That is my view anyway, and typically how we define when it is ethical to kill someone else in other areas of life as well.
"The three most common reasons—each cited by three-fourths of patients—were concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability to afford raising a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents. Half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with their husband or partner."
"The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents."
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
Bonus question: Where in the bible does it say abortion is wrong?
And this is my favourite line from that site that sells morning after pills:
"The idea here is to not need plan B® again. The best plan is deciding with your doctor which long-term method of contraception is right for you."
It then goes on to list 10 contraceptions a woman can choose from, and then list 6 places where you can learn more about sexual health.
Education, and not shaming, is the best way prevent situations like this.
"That's fine, but do you see it morally justifiable to force another person to carry a child against their will? If so, why? How would that even be accomplished? Like @LadyRhian said, outlawing abortions is only going to drive it underground and make it unsafe."
So, where exactly in my example was ANY MENTION of forced carriage? I'd appreciate if you could point it out. You'll notice that I specifically used the phrase "incentives", as in, make it worthwhile for someone to CHOOSE to carry the baby to term. Please don't put words in my mouth.
As for the Biblical example. @Yulaw9460 is partially correct. In Exodus it was said that someone who harmed a pregnant woman, and she lost her child as a result, they would have to pay reparations to the mother. Any damage done to the mother herself would be visited upon the attacker. Again though. Mosaic law is no longer a requirement, so its not a great example for contemporary morality. A better example would be "Thou shalt not kill".
I agree with @deltago that education is the best way going forward to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
"If the argument was as completely black and white as you believe it to be, there wouldnt be something like a small plurality of people in the USA that are Pro-Choice, and an even larger group of people (a majority, last I checked) that support Roe v. Wade."
Well, no. People are exceedingly good at justifying ANYTHING to themselves. Theft, murder, slavery, racism. You can find proponents for literally anything.
It is remarkably intellectually disingenuous to assume that because someone thinks that there should be a legal way to avoid punishing women for not wanting to keep a pregnancy, that this person is "pro abortion". It's also deeply offensive when that label is used to critique their morality.
Bear in mind that the only person whose views you are qualified to describe is yourself. No one is qualified to say "This is what you believe." We are only qualified to say "This is what I believe."
This principle is stated in Rule 1 at the start of the thread:
Mind you, it would be perfectly fine for anyone to worship Greek gods and goddesses. I just find it hard to believe anyone who did so would insist that society be based on their beliefs. Only the 3 major religions seem to have this kind of overwhelming arrogance to them.
What's the difference between removing the choice not to carry and forced carry? I guess I don't understand what you're advocating for.
There isn't. But did you actually read what I wrote? Its a hypothetical situation where someone was given incentives, should they CHOOSE to carry the baby to term. Again, I invite you to point where exactly in this example that choice is removed.
"I agree. I asked because one passage was simply ejected without offering another one. Finally an another one was offered which has nothing to say on abortion. I'm looking for the motivations here..."
Except it did. "Thou shalt not kill" Abortion is ending a life (Unless we want to change the argument from a feetus isn't human, to a fetus isn't alive).
@AstroBryGuy "Actually, Exodus says someone who harmed a pregnant woman and caused a miscarriage would have to pay reparations to the *husband*, not to the mother. Because the Bible considers a woman property of her father (if unmarried) or husband (if married)."
People keep quoting the Old Testament as if that is all the Bible is. I get it, the OT is easier to criticize, but its also been rendered outdated by Jesus' ministry. You know, the CHRIST that the term CHRISTIAN comes from.
@BallpointMan I'm glad you don't personally think abortion is good, but I've talked to a lot of people like @bob_veng above, who do. Its also very telling that when requested, I provided a hypothetical scenario where a woman who choose to carry a baby to term for sake of its life or her conscience would recieve assistance and incentives to remove some of the burden, I was immediately lambasted for "forcing women to carry a baby", which was nowhere in my example. So its very clear what the "choice" in "pro-choice" actually means. Your view, in my experience, is the minority. So yes, "pro-aborition" still seems completely accurate.
In every developed country there are different programs of this sort. If a women knows that she will be receiving some form of support after giving birth, and still decides to have an abortion, I wouldn't hold it against her, as I couldn't know that it would have been better for her to have had the child after all.
How I see things there is the pro-abortion camp, the anti-abortion camp and the undecided camp. Pro-choice and pro-life are silly products of political branding. I've never had a pleasant conversation on this topic with anyone who declared themselves either "pro-choice" or "pro-life", because it seems to me that these ideological sectarians can't get past cheap rhetorical moves.