First they came for my heckin abortionarinos and I didn't speak out, because birth control exists and i'm not a moron... but what's next?
This is pretty much exactly like that netflix show with the fugly chick from Mad Men.
| +86 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 52 | 2s | |
| +58 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 23 | 15h | |
| +48 | How to sound more eloquent? | 17 | 2h | |
| +39 | Insurance as High Finance? | 10 | 2d | |
| +38 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 1d | |
| +33 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 2d | |
| +30 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 7 | 2h | |
| +27 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 10 | 17h | |
| +26 | Carnivore Diet | 9 | 19h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 17h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
It seems like the most reasonable piece of legislation I can imagine. Neither the pro-life nor pro-abortion people are going to be happy, which is perfect. They maintain exceptions for any circumstances that put the mother's life in danger and abortions are allowed up to 6 weeks for any reason which provides enough time to find out about the pregnancy in the majority of cases. This eliminates the ability for people to just use abortion as another form of birth control, forcing them to be held somewhat responsible for their actions (e.g. sex without protection) and protecting the rights of the unborn better than previously. I'd personally like to see something like this put in place at the federal level.
Edit: Misspoke, apparently no exceptions for rape/incest. That's much tougher, though I'd argue it's not the child's decision to be conceived under such circumstances and that the 6 week window is still enough to solve this.
This is factually incorrect. There are no exceptions for rape or incest.
My mistake. To be totally honest, I still morally think that's ok. There's still the window in place for 6 weeks no questions asked, allowing the woman to abort if that's the case and therefore won't require them to get government sign off. It wasn't the child's choice to be conceived in that manner so I don't think it's fair to kill them because of a non-life-threatening medical circumstance. It's always going to be contentious though and I realize that, personally wish they had included those stipulations if they were going to have any because then all the major objections would be covered. I'm personally pro-life and believe life begins at conception, but the above rules still holding otherwise true means there's ample time to make the choice to abort early on if that's what the mother decides.
No offense but since you are on the pro-life side, you are of course happy with the legislation. The fact that you term the other side "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice" is telling enough. You say that people on the pro-life side are not going to be happy either, but certainly they will be much happier than those on the pro-choice side.
How ignorant can you be to think that the pro-life crowd is happier here? We genuinely see abortion as murder. There's still a month and a half window of time where an abortion can be performed for any reason - if that isn't the ultimate compromise I don't know what it. The fact that the "pro-choice" group will pitch a fit over ANY restrictions should be evidence of a bad faith positioning. It's not the right of a mother to kill a toddler if she suddenly can't easily provide financially for them. Why should it be any different for a child yet to be born? Since when did a woman's vagina become a magical gateway that bestows personhood? I thought they were just birthing persons and that anyone can get pregnant or chest-feed, so how is this only an issue of women's rights and not human rights? Why then does the legal system still consider any event caused by someone other than the mother, intentional or accidental, that results in the death of the child they're carrying manslaughter or in some cases murder? If you really want to dig to the root of the argument then you have to resolve these legal inconsistencies.
Texas' 6-week abortion ban goes into effect after Supreme Court stays silent - CBS News
I guess CBS is pro-life now then by your definition? Women in Texas still have the option to get an abortion for the early period for any reason and of course they will still be allowed at any point in the event of threat to the mother's safety. You clearly do not fundamentally understand the evolution of the "pro-choice" side over the past decade an a half. I actually used to be on the pro-choice side when it was the Democrats agreeing that abortions should be safe, legal and rare. Now they demand it be unrestricted, with no form of accountability imposed and federally-funded (e.g. people whose moral and religious beliefs are against it and see it as murder are forced to subsidize it).
As I've gotten older I've moved across the isle to believe that life begins at conception, as does the responsibility of being a parent. If a woman is having sex arbitrarily with men who would make poor partners, that's her free will and her choice, but she gets to live with the consequences. The same should go for men, if you try to walk out on a child you fathered you're a sack of shit who should be held accountable by the law. The idea that our society has reached a point where people are so averse to being held responsible for their decisions that murdering children is the easiest and most reasonable solution in the eyes of a large part of the population is disgusting and morally abhorrent. It hasn't been about just having the "choice" for years now. You have abortion groups quite literally celebrating abortions like they're something that shouldn't be seen as a tragic last resort, instead treating them like they should be a procedure as normal as a goddamn teeth cleaning.
What makes it even more hypocritical is that you can rest assured the same political groups that will decry this, restrictions placed on the actual ending of a human life, as an assault on bodily autonomy (despite the fact that in 99% of cases the actions taken to reach this result will have also been an exercise of bodily autonomy) are the same groups who in present times will demand you inject yourself with medication to make them feel safe. It's only my body my choice when it's something they want, and it's you have no choice because this is for everyone's wellbeing when it's something they don't. Watch the mainstream news and notice how not a single pundit is using the phrase "my body my choice" anymore, not a single one. Some of the protestors and activists who are physically marching are of course, but no one in the media is dumb enough to think they can get away with it while they push fucking vaccine passports in the morning segment. It's ridiculous.
There is no place in this country where a majority opinion that is NOT in line with the liberal ideology can have their wants and beliefs put into law without the liberal ideologues all over the country acting like it's the second coming of Hitler. Liberalism as an ideology sees itself as the ultimate check on human rights and the moral arbiter of what is and isn't oppressive, giving it the right to impose its will on anyone it sees as the out-group. But I'd bet my bonus that the people in countries the US has led coups in all felt pretty fucking oppressed by us imposing our ideas of "democracy" on them when they didn't fucking ask us. Just look at what's happening with Afghanistan, the neocons of the early 2000s like the Lincoln Project have moved over to the side of the Democrats, claiming we need to put troops back in Afghanistan to "protect women's rights." But they won't say shit about invading Saudi Arabia because they're massive donors to "the cause." Faux moral superiority is often a crude shroud used to conceal the desire to rule and impose your beliefs on others without their consent.
This country isn't culturally homogeneous, so neither should be the laws. If you don't like the laws in one state, there's 49 others you can move to. You're not entitled to it being an easy move, go back 2-3 generations and folks would regularly pick up what they had and move somewhere for a fresh start. Things are no different now, in fact they are undeniably easier. We live in a world where remote work is a normal thing, where there are tens of millions of job openings in this country desperate to be filled. It has quite literally never been easier to go somewhere else if you don't like where you're at, hence the record amount of people moving OUT of liberal cities in NY and CA to places with more freedoms and opportunity available to them.
EDIT: Since this got some traction and I feel pretty strongly about this issue, I figure it makes sense to add the continuation of this comment thread from below for visibility.
I know exactly how it works so you can take the condescension and shove it. You're the one assuming this is a circumstance where the woman is having unprotected sex directly after her period and getting pregnant. I frankly don't care about the timeline, a pregnancy test costs <$10 at Walmart. If you are having unprotected sex without being on birth control the impetus should be on the you for making that choice to be regularly testing yourself. It's no different than maintaining ones sexual health with respect to STD testing. Having sex is a choice. I believe anyone and everyone should be free to make that choice however they see fit, but that doesn't mean they're free from whatever comes of it.
I don't give a fuck if it's inconvenient, you don't get to end a life just because it is inconvenient for you while you are choosing to have the sex knowing about the possible risks without taking proper precautions. I already said above in another comment that realistically, while I don't morally agree with the differentiation of the method of conception being a reason to abort as it wasn't the child's choice to be conceived in that manner, that I could compromise with there being some sort of exception for victims of forced impregnation (rape/incest/abuse - which barely make up 1% of the reasons for abortion in the first place). There of course then comes the inevitable abuse of that exception since there's almost no way to verify that fact and you are then forcing women to prove it to the government (which I don't want them to have to do) whereas a blanket denial for anything non-life threatening would be much easier to actually enforce.
Edit: My stance on the rape/incest exception from another comment.
Sex is a choice. Choices have consequences. Don't choose to have unprotected sex if you can't afford/don't want a kid. Women are the gatekeepers of the sexual marketplace. Buy the condoms, birth control, pregnancy tests (or make your partner) and be decisive about who you fuck. It's really fucking simple. Want to fuck like an adult? Be responsible like one too or shut the fuck up when shit happens.
I think directionally the bill is headed in the right direction, but the execution was poor. Rather than being a solid piece of legislation, the bill was hastily put together with the sole intent of overturning Roe v. Wade.
My main reservations are:
1) No exceptions for incest or rape. There are serious questions regarding the 13 year old girl who is frightened to come forward for a few weeks and doesn't make it to the clinic or the daughter of a messed up man who blocks her from making it to the clinic in time. I don't think abortions for an indefinite term is correct, but I think there's a lot more nuance that goes into these situations so it should be left out in a first pass of the bill
2) Enforcement. The abortion law doesn't actually consider abortion to be a criminal offense, rather it considers abortion to be a civil one which practically diminishes the scientific argument of "right to life" and casts this as a religious issue. Additionally, making it so that anyone can sue the abortion clinic creates a flurry of cases that will clog the court system and is unstructured. The state issuing a fine, closing down the clinic and pressing charges against those who operate late-term abortions is the reasonable way to carry this out.
What possible dumb ass justification could there be for no exception for rape and incest?
I don't think there even is a justification...the purpose of this law isn't actionable legislation against abortion. The purpose is to overturn Roe v. Wade by hoping some of the civil suits make it all the way to the Supreme Court. After that happens, I assume is when Texas would really pass a real, enforceable bill.
https://thelifeinstitute.net/learning-centre/abortion-effects/children/…
It’s got to do with the philosophical argument of when life begins. Is it when the baby pops out? is it 5 minutes before? When it first resembles a human being? At heart beat? Etc. Nothing to do with what caused the baby. To take it to the opposite end, should you be able to kill an infant because you don’t want it?
If you believe that abortion is murder, then it’s murder regardless of whether the mother wants it or not and it’s ideologically consistent to make no exceptions.
You can’t say the fetus is a child if the mother wants it and a clump of cells if she doesn’t.
Reasoning about no exceptions "it is a life". Enabling reason - what I see from my view - male dominance.
The enforcement point is a good one, especially on the note of court clogging. I'm torn between criminalizing the abortion vs allowing people to sue, because I prefer the decision and action be left in the hands of individuals vs the state. But this would require that if suit is brought that it be blanketly enforced and allowed to go through if the organization/individual providing the abortion is in violation of the law. It's tough.
My stance is that even logistically citizenship enforcement will fail. I also think there are a symbolic issues with restricting this to a civil suit, but for brevity I'll omit that part for now.
The law has a provision that states that even if a person who sues loses, that person is not responsible for the legal fees involved. Furthermore, it allows any party who assisted in the abortion to be sued. The wording in itself is incredibly vague. If I have a grudge on you for other reasons, I can make up a suit that you assisted in the abortion of female XYZ and now you'll probably have to defend yourself in court at some point. This in fact is already happening, by pro-abortion groups: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/03/technology/texas-abortion-law-websit….
A more extreme but worse interpretation is that it financially incentivizes rape and incest. Suppose a family member/BF rapes his niece/GF/etc. and knows now she will want an abortion. The abortion is performed, and he sues on behalf of the clinic, cashing in on the $10K settlement. Remember, that for various reasons the chance she'll report him to the authorities isn't that high. In fact you could probably extend this argument to financially incentivizing all forms of pre-marital sex. While it may seem that Planned Parenthood will go bankrupt because of this, they really won't. They'll just charge triple the current price and pass it off to the health insurance companies who will raise premiums for everyone.
Apart from activist groups (which are a minority), your average Joe/Sue is not going on a witch hunt unless they can turn a profit. I'd argue this profit incentivizes the wrong things, and thus it's better to leave it to the state and local govt. to enforce this.
Common sense, LMAO. It is common sense to force a woman to have a baby after she has been raped or been the victim of incest. I hope you do not have mothers or sisters or daughters that become the victim of a rape or incest.
See my quote above:
It's disappointing but this sentiment does exist. Men need to take responsibility for being unwilling to control their emotions and inflicting harm that will last for many years on a girl, but some still don't.
I am sure some people think that way but you have to be one backwards, knuckle dragging dude to think this way.
Good on Texas. I hope more states do this.
This OP is one of the biggest trolls I’ve seen on here in quite awhile. I’m not buying that most people on this board who “got a girl in trouble” wouldn’t consider an abortion. Most wealthy people in Texas will get the abortions done out of state if they can’t find one in state that will do it at 7 weeks.
There is no common sense on abortion and it's highly disingenuous to suggest there is. That's precisely why it's a contentious issue and why we won't be able to resolve it.
Either you believe it's a human life, in which case you see abortion as murder, period, or you don't, in which case it's no different from eliminating any other cells from your body. People who only want exceptions for involuntary pregnancies are the absolute worst, because it's implicitly admitting that they don't think it matters if the fetus is alive or not, they only care if the woman "deserves" it.
Regardless of which worldview you subscribe to, the Texas legislation is objectively bad for numerous civil flaws (allowing anyone to sue, requiring the accused to cover legal fees regardless of outcome, etc.)
I am fairly certain the OP worded it that way to troll people by framing abortion restrictions the way people often frame gun restrictions - "No one wants to ban all abortions; we just want common sense abortion control." To his credit it worked.
It is retarded that abortion is the one cultural issue the right is ever able to get victories on, given that it is something that fundamentally doesn't matter.
My opinion on abortion is that it saved this nation from an additional 40 million criminals, welfare cases, and lay-abouts.
Fundamentally it is murder. Why doesn’t murder matter fundamentally?
“Fundamentally” you’ve been indoctrinated to think that. Just keep doing whatever your church tells you to do and keep your mouth shut.
>Believes literally exactly what he's told to believe by every powerful institution including media, social media, corporate america, academia
>Accuses others of being indoctrinated
>Is an NPC
>disbelieves literally everything he's told by the media
>believes he knows what is really happening in the world everyone else is indoctrinated by "BIG MEDIA"
>is not an NPC
lmao grow up you're an excel monkey IB nerd
Edge lords gonna edge lord.
Because it applies to such a small number of people and the people who get abortions generally shouldn't be parents anyways.
Haha, perfect. I go back and forth on this. On one hand most modern women are genuinely despicable and completely incapable of taking responsibility for any and all actions that may have negative consequences. OTOH, the majority of abortions since roe v wade have been black and brown bodies, and since 13/50 is bad enough, we really don’t need to turn that 13 into 20+. Quite the conundrum.
I don't know how this got an upvote but this is one of the most racist things I've read on this forum.
Reported. Fuck off back to 4chan
This is very true. It's politically incorrect to bring up 13/50 despite it being a statistical fact. It's basically like saying "well the terrorists trying to kill Americans were the ones America created so it's not their fault. We shouldn't blame them at all, maybe we should even let ourselves be killed because it's only fair"
Truly nonsensical. It is true that systemic oppression has caused 13/50 to be a thing, but that DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT A THING
See this is a pretty fucked up thought but it really makes the liberal BLM pro-choice crowd shut up and think for a minute.
If the 13 was 20+, the statistic would be closer to 20/80.
This country would be worse than Brazil.
I think the law is tragic because there are many reasons why a woman might need an abortion.
Couple is trying for a baby. You’re ecstatic you/your wife/gf is pregnant!! Woman had an ectopic pregnancy. Is it worth it to you to wait until it eventually ruptures and the woman dies? If no treatment (ie abortion) is taken, there is a 50% survival rate. As a woman, I’d personally go get an illegal abortion or fly to Europe and get one done. This is only one case
.
I also think it’s ridiculous there’s no exceptions for rape. IMO, there should be so many exceptions allowed here. Idgaf about the 2 hour long video my church youth group made us watch about how “it’s not just the rapists baby, it’s my baby to.” Every girl under 10 who becomes pregnant should be getting an abortion because those situations are pretty much all rape. (And the father should probably be in jail). Furthermore, all of those poor developmentally disabled people raped in group homes by workers should have the right to an abortion and the worker should be jailed.
All in all, this law only hurts poor people because rich people will always have access to abortions. Pro-life people often tout about adoption but quite frankly, most people only want to adopt healthy babies. Far fewer people are interested in babies with developmental disabilities or older kids. These kids grow up neglected and never have the opportunity to get ahead with all of the cost cutting measures that are taking place.
I’d be indifferent towards (and probably even pro) the law if exceptions for mothers health and rape were allowed and social services (ie welfare) were expanded (but the republicans are cutting all of them).
Does the baby stop being one just because the mother doesn’t want it?
Does it make you squeamish imagining an abortion done 10 minutes prior to labor (ripping off the legs, decapitation of the head etc)
If so, why is it ok at 6 or 7 months?
Pro life activists will call you a religious zealot who wants to control women for blocking any late term abortions.
If that's their response, then frankly they can't be reasoned with. I don't give a damn if we lower that number to 6 weeks.
Plus if its such a burden, fly to California to get an abortion. If you can't afford to take a flight to California to end a life changing pregnancy, then you should NOT be having unprotected sex at all. Its cheaper than an iPhone which everyone has.....
If there are abortions being done that are ripping the legs off/decapitating babies who are 10 minutes prior to labor, that is obviously wrong. But the method being wrong does not imply the action itself is wrong. I think you are just presenting this graphic imagery to get people on your side of the argument.
It's not 'graphic imagery'. You are ok justifying potential murder by using euphemisms and not thinking of what the actual action is, just casually brushing it off. Poster above just highlighted exactly what it is that is happening and now you get squeamish as you're losing your perceived moral high ground
Yikes, people on here actually think texas’ new law is “common sense”?!
I guess people are right, this board does skew alt right sadly.
This whole issue is absolutely so bizarre to me. Why are there so many fake Christians in America? By fake I mean people who claim to be very Christian but in reality warp the religion. Jesus was a tolerant and compassionate person in the Bible, yet these zealots typically are pro life and love guns and are tough on crime. And for some reason they are obsessed with limiting other people’s abortion rights. The hilarious part is that many of these Christians are caught getting abortions when it’s actually their life and the love sucking the police on these unwanted kids when they grow up and inevitably turn to crime.
Having a kid is a big deal. So many kids are already born to teen o parents, or losers or poor parents or into situations that suck. Kids cost money. They need time and love and care that many people cannot give. It’s mostly the poor and uneducated that can’t figure out how to have safe sex, so if they don’t want a kid let’s give them a chance to not have it. The rich will always have a way to get an abortion, but it’s the poor who get denied access, and then have an unwanted kid who likely becomes a burden on society.
Who cares if someone feels they are not ready to have a kid, it’s none of your business. Are you working at an orphanage to take care of all these unwanted and neglected kids? Are you adopting any? If not, stfu and worry about passing important laws instead of wasting everyone’s time on this issue.
Well said! It is a conservative form of virtue signaling. The state of Texas will become weaker economically due to this law. The people in Texas will have to pay to raise the babies who do not get aborted.
Bingo! I’m less liberal on the abortion issue than most other issues these days, but the hypocrisy from the “pro-life” crowd is stunning. This pastor sums it up well:
This position isn't an "alt right" one. It is a common right side view.
Almost half the country would support a full abortion ban.
That can't be true. Full abortion means it is completely illegal under any circumstances. The only people want this are far right religious zealots.
I think you mean it is a common right side view of people who vote. I mean half the population of eligible and active voters voted for Donald Trump in the recent election sadly. The guys isnt even republican really, but people just vote for their "side". After this last election, I basically was disgusted I ever voted Republican before.
Jesus was compassionate but he never advocated for braking government laws. Rather he advocated for following them.
"They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him." (Mark 12:14 - 17 NIV)
https://biblehub.com/mark/12-14.htm
Apart from this you have cases like the thief on the cross where Jesus forgave him spiritually, but he did not deliver him from the earthly punishment of crucifixion for his misdoings.
One of the standout exceptions (and some scholars debate whether it was in the original texts) is the woman caught in adultery. For the sake of brevity, I'll omit the verses but the reason he delivered her is that her trial and the law was not being carried out fairly. For one, she was caught in the very act (which means that the Pharisees were already eyeing on her before this and watched her and the man have sex which in itself violates laws). Furthermore, the OT law required that both the woman and the man be stoned to death. In this "trial" it's clear that the Pharisees had already freed the man, which is blatant gender discrimination and improper procedure. It should be noted that this isn't the same as tolerating crime or misdoing. Jesus told the woman specifically to never commit this sin again after he got her out of the situation.
Anecdotal and not particularly useful. I could share anecdotes of girls in their early 20s that I know who despite having the BF ditch them, decided to raise the baby as a single mom
Who loves watching people go to jail? If it's a criminal, yes but police is a defensive measure. I would much rather live in a world where no one breaks the law and no goes to jail but that's unfortunately not the case
This is the textbook definition of discrimination based on social class. You're literally stating that poor people will amount to nothing except becoming criminals and it's best to get rid of them to start with. What happened to that "love and compassion" you were talking about just a few lines before?
No abortion law passed by a red state has banned abortions from contraception onward so your point is moot
We're talking about societal policies. Think about say opium restrictions. Few of us have suffered (or will suffer) and opium addiction, but that point is moot when you're thinking about what will benefit society at large.
1. You can quote the bible all you want. But like most religious texts, it was written long ago and can be interpreted however you want. When a book is filled with metaphors all over the place it is easy to make it say what you want. I personally believe that any religious figure like Jesus was tolerant. Period. No ambiguity or exceptions. Jesus would forgive someone who wanted an abortion in my eyes.
2. Anecdotes are helpful in this case, because I have noticed than anyone, liberals included, that have a black and white policy on topics are highly likely to be hypocrites. Donald Trump campaigned against immigrants and is xenophobic, yet married an immigrant who can barely speak english. AOC cries about waste of money and capitalism, yet now enjoys a healthy salary from the government and doesn't live below her means. Rush Limbaugh and prescriptions drugs, etc. I was pointing out that these faux Christians who are totally against strangers getting abortions are highly likely to be the ones that don't help these unwanted kids when they are born. Which makes no sense to me.
3. I was not trying to discriminate against the poor and uneducated, I was just stating real world facts. If you are born UNWANTED to poor, uneducated or young parents, it is highly likely you won't have a great upbringing and therefore more likely to be a burden on society. Some break the cycle of poverty and some rich kids turn out to be scumbags, but in general. But having older, educated and loving parents obviously helps a kid become a successful and well adjusted person. How can you argue this point? lol.
4. Well, in my opinion 6 weeks is a ridiculously short period of time. Especially since many people considering abortions are young women who don't know their body clocks super well. There are instances where young and uneducated women give birth and did not know they were pregnant. I mean how can you actually think 6 weeks is adequate time to know you are pregnant, consider your options and then plan to get an abortion?
5. You then compare laws in place to prevent people from doing opiates to people who want abortions. What a terrible example. If people just abused drugs in their homes and did not bother anyone, society would not care. The problem with drugs is that they turn people into criminals and burdens on society. Exactly like unwanted babies are likely to become. Again, having a child is a big deal. It is scary. It takes love and money and patience. If someone does not want a kid, in today's society they should have that right. We live in a democracy and not a police state, so people have the right to choose for themselves. Only in America are there tons of commercials for viagra and yet we still have to debate with people like you that a women who is raped and doesn't want the kid should be able to choose to have an abortion. I mean come on. Do you also think we should not have gun restrictions on assault weapons because 300 years ago our founding fathers said citizens should have the right to bear arms?
You're being ignorant. The pro-life cause has nothing to do with Christianity or being "alt-right." It's a philosophical belief. I'm not a Christian and I am strongly pro-life. The reason people are so strongly against abortion is that they literally believe it's an act of murder. What if a mother doesn't want her 1 year old child? Do you think it is be acceptable for her to "terminate" the kid to escape motherhood? Obviously not. The pro-life crowd believes that killing an unborn child in the womb is just as unacceptable. There's a valuable human life in both cases, in our opinion. It's not "none of our business" if our government mandates providing a practice we consider is murder.
In your reply you use an example of a mother killing a 1 year old? I don't get that example at all. Its totally different, just like in courts we have all these different levels of murder, like 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc.
Abortion providers are needed, because without access to them people literally kill babies. In india, in rural villages for example, baby girls are routinely abandoned or killed.
Our supreme court already decided this matter in the 70's, but alt right people refuse to listen and keep pushing back. I think us in the middle and people with common sense can take comfort in the fact that as time passes, people become less ignorant, more educated and more inclusive. People like you who compare abortions to murdering actual 1 years olds will never see the issue. If you are that against the Roe v Wade decision and feel so strongly about it, you're welcome to live in a country where abortion is totally illegal. But I have a feeling you won't enjoy living there lol.
Grown adults who say "Yikes" when someone disagrees with them can and should be ignored.
Reddit tier man child, clearly.
As I said guys, when they can’t fight your logic they sling personal attacks.
Go back to Reddit clown.
As I noted guys, they’ll just start hurling insults when they realize their logic is flawed. There’s a reason they post anon. Thanks for the input associate 2.
Stopped reading here
Until someone can definitively answer the question "When does life begin?", the whole abortion thing is never going to be "solved".
I agree. And once you figure out where life begins, you can use that argument to determine when life ends which will create a new issue regarding life support and organ donation.
If it’s determined life begins when the heart starts beating and it’s murder to abort anything with a heart beat, then if someone is brain dead but their heart is beating, are you murdering them by taking them off of life support? Should someone remain on life support indefinitely?
This issue then ties into into organ donation. If someone is brain dead (but has a heart beat) but and indicates they want to be an organ donor, is it murder removing their organs for organ transplants?
This issue will never ever be solved because both sides believe their view is the correct on and they can’t coexist. A similar situation is the Western Wall ,Temple Mount, dome of the rock in Israel.
This is incorrect - abortions will end when we have the scientific tools to support life from conception. We barely have the medical technology to support premature babies outside the womb. Someday we will have the medical technology to deliver a zygote and then harvest the baby if the government is against abortion and the woman doesn’t want the baby, but the government keeps it to protect the rights of the unborn.
Exactly. More specifically, when does personhood begin? It is a philosophical debate at the end of the day. The pro-life view is fairly straightforward. The moment a distinct human organism exists (conception), a new person exists. Pro-choice people obviously disagree, but if you asked them at what point the mere clump of cells transforms into a human person, they can't give you a proper answer.
Heartbeat? Why chose the heart and not another organ? Also, heartbeat happens at the sixth week of pregnancy, which falls in line with the Texas bill.
Viability? Why does the baby's biological dependance on the mother determine his/her moral worth? A child is still dependent on their parents even when he/she is born. Does that make them less valuable and give the parents a legal right to end their child's life if they don't want to make sacrifices?
Consciousness? A child's brain is still not fully developed even when they are born. There are many varying views, but the general take is that children develop self-awareness at some point between birth and when they are four. If mental capacity is the standard we are using for personhood, then we would have to condone infanticide as well.
Then there are some philosophical thought experiments, like the one PrivateTechquity pointed out. What would happen if you got into an accident with a pregnant mother and her pregnancy was "terminated"? You would be charged with murder. Not assault. Not destruction of property. Not practicing women's rights. Murder. Why is the unborn child a morally-significant human person in one context and a clump of cells in another? That makes no sense. If a six week old baby is truly just a clump of cells, I should be able to go around killing fetuses in pregnant women without facing any consequences.
So what makes a life valuable? The pro-life view is that life is valuable in virtue of simply existing. Human beings are not valuable because they are smart, developed, or because other human beings give them permission to be. They are valuable because they are human, period.
I don't know about common sense or whatnot as THERE IS NO "COMMON SENSE" ON ABORTION
Pro-choicers are trying to shame you into thinking there is when in fact pro-lifers believe it is MURDER. Would you want to live in a country where you can casually murder someone next to you because you think they are an inconvenience? This is the same standard to which pro-lifers believe abortion is. Of course it's not 'obvious'
Pro-lifers on other side can get over-zealous on no exceptions for rape / incest / etc which is also wrong. Moreover, some people are not really meant to be parents & world does have over-population issues. So I get this side as well
But again, both sides have very valid points. I'm glad at least on this forum people are able to safely express opinions on both sides.
I don't think there is going to be much more sex (heterosexual vaginal intercourse) in Texas - given the high risk to both parties. The contraception can fail, an unwanted or risky pregnancy can result. Sounds like more homosexuality and masturbation to me. Would you agree? Do you think people will avoid moving to Texas or start moving out for this reason? What will happen to investments there?
That is a good point and I feel bad for the guys in Texas. Lots of women are going to start saying no. Be careful what you wish for...
You feel bad for guys who can't get consensual sex? Not the women forced to carry pregnancies resulting from rape? You stupid fucking piece of shit.
How’s your son doing? Does he still think you’re a sad excuse for a dad and won’t talk to you? Your positions on abortion are starting to make more and more sense.
There will never be consensus on this issue. For one thing, women and men will always have different personal stakes in the law. Religious beliefs or lack of them have introduced and strengthened nearly everyone's perspective to the point that it's unlikely anyone will ever change their mind on the subject. People have become ingrained in their belief of when life begins. One side feels affronted when they cannot abort at their personally preferred time, while the other side sees every abortion as murder and unacceptable. There's no 'everyone is happy' solution. The closest thing might be minimizing abortion, educating teens and young adults, and increasing access to contraception. Still, abortions would happen so it will not please a large part of America. The pro choice crowd likely does not view the new law as a compromise but pro lifers are 'giving them' more time than they want to.
The enforcement of this law is a bigger issue. Deputizing private citizens to sue the providers and related parties to an abortion (I have read the mother cannot be sued) is an extremely dangerous workaround to properly debating and legislating the legality of abortion. If anyone cares about contentious issues in America, especially relating to highly debated rights laid out in the constitution, this method of enforcement should raise alarm. If the state will put out a bounty for a new crime and tell your neighbors to turn each other in, how far are we really from people marching around with little red books turning in anyone associated with the five olds? I'm hyperbolizing for sure, but getting people to sue each other instead of making an action an actual crime is a horrible precedent to set and endangers freedom. They will do the same with guns, taxes, drugs, etc.
It has a heart beat idk how you could argue that this is not a living organism. It’s just sad to see unborn babies being killed. Did their lives not matter? In cases of rape obviously i can see the case for abortion. But what percent of abortions are from rape? But man it just is heart breaking. It’s also ironic that if a pregnant woman is murdered it counts as a double homicide but when that baby is killed it’s not technically living.
Stop quoting the bible my bros, you're using the same logic muslims use to justify horrible shit. As someone who is pro-life but not for religious reasons, I love how this forum calls abortion murder and then whines about the $3k in taxes they pay each year for the NYC education system. If you're pro-life, you better be pro-paying-for-the-kid-to-have-basic-neccesities-and-developmental-tools too. Majority of abortions have been low-income people in the past 30 years. I am of the belief that abortion is wrong, but I am also of the belief that I and others like me should be responsible to contribute to the future success and welfare of these otherwise aborted children. We can't have it both ways. If we are forcing the person to have the child (as I believe we should), we cannot sit back and let the child suffer and fail in a rigged system against them that is growing up in a low-income environment.
I fully agree with your end logic that minorities, on average, are too retarded and low IQ to utilize any form of birth control, even though access to condoms and the pill are abundant in low income areas. Hence we must pay for them, ever more, as always.
On the contrary, I’d take the other side and double, hell even triple, the number of planned parenthood’s and abortion centers in brown and black areas across America. Preventing them from having kids can only be a good thing.
What makes you say that minorities have better access to birth control than whites? In general they have worse health care, why does this not extend to this?
Man, I didn’t even mention the word “‘minorities” in my post.
Ideally we'd live in a world where parents are responsible enough to have children only when they are confident they can provide for them. It's wrong to have the taxpayer pay for you children, but it's even more wrong to kill them, so I guess the former is still the better alternative.
If we are making them have a child they could possibly avoid, IMO, we should be partially responsible for the raising of that child as well, if they cannot support the child themselves. It is inconsistent for us, as the people, as the government, to force ourselves upon them in one area related to their children, and not the other, especially when BOTH areas of government intervention would ultimately BENEFIT the children. Saying you don’t think taxpayers shouldn’t pay for raising children in low-income environments because their parents should ideally be the ones paying is spiteful. The children did nothing wrong. You would save that child from abortion, but you don’t think it’s wrong to doom that child to a shitty life due to uncontrollable circumstances? I believe that a life without love or hope is worse than death. I think a lot of other people who come from shittier backgrounds would agree with me. I think it’s a Harry Potter quote from 20 years ago but I still remember it. “Do not pity the dead, Pity the living and above all, those who live without love.”
Supporting abortion because of some dumb slut's "right to choose" is retarded.
Supporting abortion because it means America has 40 million fewer criminals and crack addicts is based.
Hell yea! I love how at least half a dozen middlebrow thinkers in here have made the roundabout case that minorities are just too fucking stupid to use any form of birth control, even though it’s abundant in their neighborhoods, hence they should always have easy access to abortion. I had no idea WSO had so many god damn racists!
I am personally pro-life, but not a single issue voter, and generally vote for moderate Dems and Republicans who support pro-family policies that actually reduce abortion rates, instead of dumb shit like this Texas bill which will be struck down in court eventually.
Want to know what actually reduces abortion rates? Comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraception, both of which reduce unwanted pregnancies; social programs (healthcare, family leave, and yes, “welfare”) that supports pregnant women and new mothers; increased wages and subsidy/tax credit programs (like the one Romney proposed) that materially reduce child poverty and make it easier to support a family; and increased investment in education which will help children grow up to live a prosperous life. If your “pro-life” platform includes these planks, props to you. If your “pro-life” policies end the day a baby is born…FOH.
Finally, even if abortion is fully outlawed, history tells us that abortion rates still won’t go to zero. I’d rather abortion be safe, legal, and rare, than dangerous, illegal, and rare.
Making it dangerous discourages abortion and has a built-in punishment mechanism. If anything, we should strive towards making abortion as dangerous and risky as possible to minimize rates.
The government shouldn’t have any say with what you do to your own body. Making it illegal in any circumstance just makes people do it illegally.
Temporibus id est nesciunt minima. Amet voluptatem nihil dolor delectus illo facilis neque. Tenetur quo ipsa est et ducimus. Cum officia aut ut dolores occaecati totam eius. Id dolorum vitae facere iure exercitationem.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Qui fugiat ducimus quasi in impedit. Illum nesciunt sapiente rerum nobis consequatur sequi. Corrupti doloribus natus quia cupiditate ea. Quisquam iste in ut ut non quibusdam. Odio magnam non aperiam magnam maiores doloremque.
Est sequi voluptatum esse. Rerum qui rerum tempora quod perspiciatis optio. Nihil sed ea voluptatem ipsa debitis in reiciendis.
Voluptatem officiis rem aut. Sapiente sequi quo deserunt magnam optio saepe nisi. Quos quae alias praesentium numquam. Numquam quaerat vitae et totam odio non.
Eaque enim consequatur asperiores culpa non ea ut facere. Illum aut quo quia nulla ipsam tenetur vero. Sapiente illum exercitationem qui in temporibus.
Eaque minus quibusdam asperiores minus voluptate. Provident sint autem iure atque est dolores nemo deserunt. Est et porro rerum.
Voluptatem eius ea dolore ipsum iusto. Debitis sed omnis ad suscipit ut. Inventore eum animi ad expedita soluta. Velit veniam et nihil minus ad commodi. Et eius deleniti sed vitae ut cum eius.
Officiis saepe quisquam enim beatae quis. Est est veniam consequuntur repellendus quia.
Sint doloremque quis aspernatur nesciunt exercitationem fuga. Vel ipsum placeat est adipisci commodi fugiat dolores. Debitis dicta dolor vel.
Cupiditate fuga cum porro necessitatibus quis et. Temporibus necessitatibus sequi molestiae repellat. Et quidem tenetur doloremque enim adipisci.
Ullam doloribus expedita eos inventore. Quo deserunt ad sunt sint itaque voluptatem repudiandae. Ea cum omnis ut expedita ut. Voluptas id et deleniti et voluptatem quis. Quo porro suscipit exercitationem consequatur reprehenderit nulla culpa repellendus. Fugiat optio commodi repudiandae eveniet enim rem autem.
Ratione natus inventore eligendi ab ut. Vero placeat suscipit temporibus sequi. Incidunt velit velit eum modi alias. Magnam voluptatem similique quia. Magnam doloremque ut numquam molestiae recusandae neque vero. Quos sit soluta exercitationem commodi voluptas ad.
Quis voluptas eum cupiditate repellat et sit. Deleniti asperiores tempora sint quo veritatis aut.