If this moronic country of mine ever overturns Roe v Wade I'm fucking out of here, for real
But shit like this is happening all over the world: Brexit; Italy's new fascists; the increasing popularity of France's nationalists (National Front party); Merkel's time is up in Germany, paving the way for the nuts in her party to finally come out of the woodwork--the SPD is gasping like a fish out of water--and alter the political bedrock of the continent all while emboldening destructive politicians from other European nations; Costa Rica's (where abortion is illegal) leading presidential candidate is an evangelical who's running on a platform against gay marriage; Brazil's ruling party is executing its opposition; hell, even the Netherlands took a hard right. Where would you go? The cold-as-fuck countries appear to be holding steady to democratic ideals, but who knows how long that will last? The new generation of voters appear to want it this way.
If you figure something out, let me know. We've got all of our passports ready.
Yah this is the shitty part of their mentality for sure.
They insist the young, inner city teen has her baby, but then also insists she takes up two minimum wage jobs to provide for the child as it raises itself (lest she need some form of social assistance).
There will still be a large number of people clinging to guns and bibles, and will eat up when someone like Donald Trump pretends to be a holy roller.... but if the issue of abortion was removed, it would kick the legs out enough where Republicans (as they currently stand) would never win a National election, and also flip a lot of congressional seats.
Abortion is one of the major dividing issues, it’s true, though I’m not sure I agree with your assessment here. But if it were true, are you suggesting that “let them have it” is a preferred option? Because if you are, you’re willing to give up on a major feature of women’s health and women’s rights just to placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society. And I agree with Halifax, it would not end there.
If that is your view on pro-choice vs pro-life then you have missed the mark on this one. I've mentioned it before, and this is one of my biggest pet peeves about this debate. How pro-choicers misrepresent the pro-life side (I know it happens on both sides. But seems to be more common one way). I have never met anyone who is pro-life because they are to restrict women's right. That person does not exist. Which is why there is not a big gender bag in pro life vs pro choice. To suggest pro-life exists because "placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society." then I would think you have never really listened to a single pro-life argument, ever. But probably just get your pro-life impressions from liberal politicians. I've never heard those accusations more than from liberal politicians who just want to make you believe I am pro-life because I hate women. So why are so many women pro-life then? I would recommend that everyone seriously sit down and talk with someone from a different point of view, and really listen to them. No matter what the topic is. You can learn a lot from talking to other people. Anyone who thinks pro-life is about restricting women has never done that, or listened to what they have to say.
No, you’ve totally misunderstood and misconstrued my post. The “placate” comment clearly referred to giving up on fighting for access to health care I’m order to try to get concessions elsewhere. It doesn’t say that’s the reason people may be anti-choice.
And I’ve certainly spoken with people who are anti-choice whose reasons centre around controlling women’s reproductive options, so don’t try to argue that those people aren’t out there.
And finally, I didn’t use the term “hate women”. That’s your term, don’t try to project that as my argument.
I did not intentionally misconstrue your point, I may have misunderstood it. I didn't say we "hate women," but said that is a common accusation among politicians pushing their pro-choice agenda, they want everyone to believe we are pro-choice because we mistreat women. Instead of focusing on the real reasons and focus on the science behind life, they just accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being sexist.
I would not call someone anti-choice, just like I wouldn't label someone anti-life. That gives me the impression that you are not really open to other's opinions, the only reason to give a negative label like that is to try and dismiss them. Which is in line with my example of politicians and their labels. I could be entirely wrong about that, (and I'm not even trying to say that is really the case) that is just the impression I get from the language used. I mean, would you think anyone was really sincere if they called everyone else anti-life? Probably not. And of course there are those trying to control women's reproductive organs, that's the whole point being pro-life. But it is the motivation behind it. How many do it because they feel women are inferior, and how many because they want to preserve life. I think the latter reason is much, much more common. The first group would be an insignificant portion. The fact that there are as many pro-life women as men would tend to back that statement up, otherwise it would be completely lopsided (even more women according to many polls)..
Anti-choice is accurate, since the defining feature of the argument is removing the choice of abortion for women. I don’t agree with that side identifying themselves as pro-life, because that attempts to claim the moral high ground and define the pro-choice side as anti-life, which it is not.
No time to respond to the other points right now
Brings me back to my earlier comment. you don't understand the views of pro-life if you think the defining feature is removing choice. It is not. The defining feature is preserving life. That argument seems to get lost in every abortion discussion. And if you truly believe the defining feature is just removing choice and restricting rights to women then you do not understand that passion or motivation and logic behind anyone who is pro-life. Why else would women make up half of the pro-life group? I mean no disrespect towards anyone who is pro-choice. I wouldn't ever call them murderers, I know there are some who do, but that isn't helpful or honest. But I recognize that the difference is almost always when does life start. The few suggestions for other reasons like that abortion should be allowed for population control if nothing else is honestly disgusting (which someone suggested a page or two back). That is why I think it is as accurate to say anti-choice as it is to say anti-life.
They may not think that removing a woman's choice is the defining feature of their belief but that is the ultimate end result, I don't know how that can be argued. What someone believes or is their intent is irrelevant, it is the result that matters.
So you're saying the end result is the defining feature? I would disagree with that. The defining feature for those in support of more welfare and unemployment is to raise taxes then, not help support the poor? I would not think so.
If this moronic country of mine ever overturns Roe v Wade I'm fucking out of here, for real
But shit like this is happening all over the world: Brexit; Italy's new fascists; the increasing popularity of France's nationalists (National Front party); Merkel's time is up in Germany, paving the way for the nuts in her party to finally come out of the woodwork--the SPD is gasping like a fish out of water--and alter the political bedrock of the continent all while emboldening destructive politicians from other European nations; Costa Rica's (where abortion is illegal) leading presidential candidate is an evangelical whose running on a platform against gay marriage; Brazil's ruling party is executing its opposition; hell, even the Netherlands took a hard right. Where would you go? The cold-as-fuck countries appear to be holding steady to democratic ideals, but who knows how long that will last? The new generation of voters appear to want it this way.
If you figure something out, let me know. We've got all of our passports ready.
We're doing okay in Canada with this shit, and it appears that we will be for the foreseeable future. Banning abortion isn't even really on the Conservative radar, nor is fascism, and gay marriage is completely non-controversial here; we've had it for years. Come here. It's not cold in Vancouver.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
If this moronic country of mine ever overturns Roe v Wade I'm fucking out of here, for real
But shit like this is happening all over the world: Brexit; Italy's new fascists; the increasing popularity of France's nationalists (National Front party); Merkel's time is up in Germany, paving the way for the nuts in her party to finally come out of the woodwork--the SPD is gasping like a fish out of water--and alter the political bedrock of the continent all while emboldening destructive politicians from other European nations; Costa Rica's (where abortion is illegal) leading presidential candidate is an evangelical who's running on a platform against gay marriage; Brazil's ruling party is executing its opposition; hell, even the Netherlands took a hard right. Where would you go? The cold-as-fuck countries appear to be holding steady to democratic ideals, but who knows how long that will last? The new generation of voters appear to want it this way.
If you figure something out, let me know. We've got all of our passports ready.
We're doing okay in Canada with this shit, and it appears that we will be for the foreseeable future. Banning abortion isn't even really on the Conservative radar, not is fascism, and gay marriage is completely non-controversial here; we've had it for years. Come here. It's not cold in Vancouver.
The warmest spot is also the priciest. Damn you, Canada!
If this moronic country of mine ever overturns Roe v Wade I'm fucking out of here, for real
But shit like this is happening all over the world: Brexit; Italy's new fascists; the increasing popularity of France's nationalists (National Front party); Merkel's time is up in Germany, paving the way for the nuts in her party to finally come out of the woodwork--the SPD is gasping like a fish out of water--and alter the political bedrock of the continent all while emboldening destructive politicians from other European nations; Costa Rica's (where abortion is illegal) leading presidential candidate is an evangelical who's running on a platform against gay marriage; Brazil's ruling party is executing its opposition; hell, even the Netherlands took a hard right. Where would you go? The cold-as-fuck countries appear to be holding steady to democratic ideals, but who knows how long that will last? The new generation of voters appear to want it this way.
If you figure something out, let me know. We've got all of our passports ready.
We're doing okay in Canada with this shit, and it appears that we will be for the foreseeable future. Banning abortion isn't even really on the Conservative radar, not is fascism, and gay marriage is completely non-controversial here; we've had it for years. Come here. It's not cold in Vancouver.
The warmest spot is also the priciest. Damn you, Canada!
Come to Winnipeg! Its not cold in the summer! (But wear full body netting and bring an electric fly swatter)
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
Some facts for those that would prefer abortion be banned.
Criminalizing abortion does not reduce the rate of abortion; it simply increases the risks to pregnant women.
One salient paragraph out of many in the article, below:
The report found that abortions occur as frequently in the two most restrictive categories of countries – such as Malta, where it is banned outright, or Ireland, where it is allowed only to save the woman’s life – as it does in the least restrictive category, where it is allowed no matter what the reason.
What that means is that banning abortion is known to be ineffective in reducing the rate of abortions, and thus is mostly just done out of spite and misguided moral outrage. We already know how to reduce the rate of abortions - provide easily accessible, low cost or free, effective birth control. When you look at this evidence, and compare it to what the right actually does, it's difficult to believe their stated motivation of protecting unborn children.
Some facts for those that would prefer abortion be banned.
Criminalizing abortion does not reduce the rate of abortion; it simply increases the risks to pregnant women.
One salient paragraph out of many in the article, below:
The report found that abortions occur as frequently in the two most restrictive categories of countries – such as Malta, where it is banned outright, or Ireland, where it is allowed only to save the woman’s life – as it does in the least restrictive category, where it is allowed no matter what the reason.
What that means is that banning abortion is known to be ineffective in reducing the rate of abortions, and thus is mostly just done out of spite and misguided moral outrage. We already know how to reduce the rate of abortions - provide easily accessible, low cost or free, effective birth control. When you look at this evidence, and compare it to what the right actually does, it's difficult to believe their stated motivation of protecting unborn children.
Yep, Irish people just go to England. If you want to terminate a pregnancy, the hassle of taking a plane or boat over to England is hardly going to be enough to make you say 'ah jaysus I couldn't be arsed, sure I'll just carry it to term'
Yes if it is as a result of rape. No if you were too irresponsible to use contraceptives.
Why? It's still a woman's choice regardless of contraceptive use. You're basically taking away choice because therebwere no condoms?
I don't know, I'm torn on this issue and have been for a long time. As much as I respect women's rights, it's human life we are talking about terminating here. What about the pill? It's a woman's responsibility to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy and the man's responsibility to use a condom and it is the woman's responsibility to refrain from sex if her partner has no condom.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
Yes if it is as a result of rape. No if you were too irresponsible to use contraceptives.
Why? It's still a woman's choice regardless of contraceptive use. You're basically taking away choice because therebwere no condoms?
The choice should have been made before having sex.
Not just the woman’s body to consider after that.
On the converse - is a woman's body a woman's to control? Because if it is, and a fetus happens to reside inside of it, maybe the woman should go skydiving, shoot some heroin, and take up boxing, since a woman's body is not a baby's to control. Unless you feel it is, and that the acceptance of a man's seed forces a woman into a life of subservience to a yet-to-be-born child.
When a topic like this has so many conflicting yet valid perspectives - what right does society have to make this decision on behalf of anyone? Let people keep their own damn personal opinions, and let them act on them, recognizing consensus is not feasible.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Yes if it is as a result of rape. No if you were too irresponsible to use contraceptives.
And how do you propose a woman's rape be verified?? You want them to be put on trial maybe, to prove a woman claiming rape was actually raped so she's granted the right to abort a baby?? Or should only the rape victims with hard evidence of their rape be able to do it?
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yes if it is as a result of rape. No if you were too irresponsible to use contraceptives.
Why? It's still a woman's choice regardless of contraceptive use. You're basically taking away choice because therebwere no condoms?
The choice should have been made before having sex.
Not just the woman’s body to consider after that.
On the converse - is a woman's body a woman's to control? Because if it is, and a fetus happens to reside inside of it, maybe the woman should go skydiving, shoot some heroin, and take up boxing, since a woman's body is not a baby's to control. Unless you feel it is, and that the acceptance of a man's seed forces a woman into a life of subservience to a yet-to-be-born child.
When a topic like this has so many conflicting yet valid perspectives - what right does society have to make this decision on behalf of anyone? Let people keep their own damn personal opinions, and let them act on them, recognizing consensus is not feasible.
I read a very interesting article this week (and maybe posted it here? can’t remember) based on exactly this point. Essentially, it argued that where there is no consensus in a society that something is even a crime, any laws around it can not be fashioned on a basis of “morals” of one side or another, and instead should only be based on areas of verifiable facts. Pertaining to abortion specifically, one relevant fact is that both medical and surgical abortions are safer for a woman than pregnancy and childbirth; thus, anti abortion laws increase medical risk to women.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Are there actually any contraceptives that are 100% effective? I don't believe so. Unless I'm incorrect, I find equating its failure to irresponsibility on the user's part to be unfair and / or uneducated.
Yes if it is as a result of rape. No if you were too irresponsible to use contraceptives.
What about cases of fatal foetal abnormality or when the mother's life is at risk?
Also, as others have pointed out, no form of birth control is 100% reliable
Yes, I'm okay with that. If the baby is going to end up severely disabled or the mum's life at risk I am for abortion. I believe the pill is 100% reliable.
Post edited by Thoughts_Arrive on
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
Comments
Idaho joins other red states with 'abortion reversal' law - ABC News https://apple.news/AB3MP8NADRVOCVay9XmTq4Q
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
If you figure something out, let me know. We've got all of our passports ready.
Yah this is the shitty part of their mentality for sure.
They insist the young, inner city teen has her baby, but then also insists she takes up two minimum wage jobs to provide for the child as it raises itself (lest she need some form of social assistance).
The defining feature for those in support of more welfare and unemployment is to raise taxes then, not help support the poor? I would not think so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ25-U3jNWM
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://harpers.org/archive/2017/10/delisle-mississippi/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
we will find a way, we will find our place
we will find a way, we will find our place
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
On long road trips, I'll go to Alice Cooper every now and then (he's awesome).
My wife hates him so I have to wait until she's sleeping. I Love the Dead and this song are her two favourite to hate.
Criminalizing abortion does not reduce the rate of abortion; it simply increases the risks to pregnant women.
One salient paragraph out of many in the article, below:
The report found that abortions occur as frequently in the two most restrictive categories of countries – such as Malta, where it is banned outright, or Ireland, where it is allowed only to save the woman’s life – as it does in the least restrictive category, where it is allowed no matter what the reason.
What that means is that banning abortion is known to be ineffective in reducing the rate of abortions, and thus is mostly just done out of spite and misguided moral outrage. We already know how to reduce the rate of abortions - provide easily accessible, low cost or free, effective birth control. When you look at this evidence, and compare it to what the right actually does, it's difficult to believe their stated motivation of protecting unborn children.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/mar/21/abortion-rates-drop-dramatically-rich-countries-terminations-study
No if you were too irresponsible to use contraceptives.
we will find a way, we will find our place
As much as I respect women's rights, it's human life we are talking about terminating here.
What about the pill? It's a woman's responsibility to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy and the man's responsibility to use a condom and it is the woman's responsibility to refrain from sex if her partner has no condom.
The choice should have been made before having sex.
Not just the woman’s body to consider after that.
Cincinnati 2014
Greenville 2016
(Raleigh 2016)
Columbia 2016
When a topic like this has so many conflicting yet valid perspectives - what right does society have to make this decision on behalf of anyone? Let people keep their own damn personal opinions, and let them act on them, recognizing consensus is not feasible.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Also, as others have pointed out, no form of birth control is 100% reliable
I believe the pill is 100% reliable.