Abortion...

[BoM]

19 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

Against murder? Just don't murder people, dumbass.

 

I will fledge this out in about an hour when I get off work, but what an incredibly asinine and shallow take.

 

If you, @BoMand @Easterpinkcould work together to form a post about why you think there's a significant distinction between morality and law that would be extremely helpful in understanding your viewpoint.

I got you covered, was already written.

 

Alright so what you have to understand about law is that it represents a collective group of people and what they feel is their 'right and wrong', both based on a moral compass and also the potential impacts on society which can but do not always weigh into someone's moral compass.

 

So I'll break that down clearly for you, here is my priority for anything related to laws, government, etc:

 

1. Does it agree with or conflict with my personal moral compass.

2. How does it affect everything else...societal impact, money, logistics, etc.

 

It's that simple, I weigh my moral compass over all the other bullshit. It keeps it clear cut for me, as I want to worry about the right thing before I worry about the financially sensible thing. I also want to clarify that my moral compass is built on logic, pragmatism, and what I find to be a crystal clear understanding of my emotions.

 

I am driven by that moral compass and compelled to argue for very clear laws stating that abortion is legal as is the right for doctors to perform those abortions throughout the country. I understand fully that this conflicts with a whole group of people and their moral standing, however I have a strong conviction about it. I weigh a woman's right to her own body and her right to carry on with her life in a way she sees fit over the life of an unborn baby, up to the point when that baby actually starts looking like baby...has a face etc. I can run down all the reasons scientific or otherwise that I have that hardline stop, though mostly just the thought of killing something that has a face starts to become harder to stomach...even more so something that has been proven to be able to live...i.e. premature babies and stuff. Prior to that I just don't respect that life in a sense that I would weigh it over the livelihood and even potential life of a woman.

 

I find it odd that it's like woman and children first, but also unborn children over women. So okay we don't really weigh women as highly as we pretend...interesting.

 

I also find most people don't actually take their moral stance and apply it to a personal scenario, only being able to talk about it in a general sense as if it has nothing to do with them and would never affect that.

 

Take it or leave it. Really I'd love to meet people in the middle, but if you can't come out and say 'abortion should be legal up to XYZ', unrelated to rape, incest, etc...then we fundamentally disagree on a moral level that I cannot look past.

 

Edit: Final thought - clearly easterpink see's that it his moral compass conflicts with others and simply wants to let each person make their own choice on it, instead of pushing that these people are solely in the wrong and it should not be allowed by anyone anywhere.

[Black Rain]

As someone with a vagina, I find it amusing watching men debate this topic every week.

 

 

 

 

[jazzy]

If the fetus is alive, and the mother must host it (assuming abortion is illegal), is this not slavery? Just curious.

[Strayyz]

1 minute ago, Jazzyy said:

If the fetus is alive, and the mother must host it (assuming abortion is illegal), is this not slavery? Just curious.

na na thats facts, im hitting the o7 salute for big bro 

[Charliere]

as someone who was born a mistake and was not aborted i have some opinions regarding this topic

some people are not meant to be parents, physically, mentally, emotionally, or financially

if a child is just going to grow up in misery and barely has a chance of surviving, why should a woman not be able to make that choice herself?

those who say that a woman shouldn't abort or should just give the child up for adoption clearly have no idea how awful the foster care system is and how many children are abused or victimized in the system or by their very own foster families
even in the case of adoption there is still the thousands of dollars worth of medical bills for doctors visits and giving birth itself

as someone mentioned, having children born into broken homes only leads to more problems later on when they're in society

 

and say if someone actually decides to keep this baby, there are very scarce resources for women who can't afford to raise a child
fuck, half of the fucking house of representatives voted against the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act which was literally needed to address the shortage of formula which babies NEED

don't even say you're pro-life if you don't give a shit about a baby once it's popped out

 

taking away the right to abortions is only going to take away safe abortions. i'm not even going to comment on life threatening or etopic pregnancies because it seems like people would rather a woman die than have her terminate an already dead fucking fetus

[Steel_]

If I found out that I was going to be the father of a child in nine months while starting college, I’d be terrified but would still choose to raise my child. That’s just what I believe in and that’s what it should be, a choice. It makes no sense in my mind for a government to restrict what someone chooses to do with their body. I would love to live in a society where every baby could be born in a emotionally/financially stable family but that just isn’t possible sometimes. 

[kabLe]

29 minutes ago, Charliere said:

as someone who was born a mistake and was not aborted i have some opinions regarding this topic

some people are not meant to be parents, physically, mentally, emotionally, or financially

if a child is just going to grow up in misery and barely has a chance of surviving, why should a woman not be able to make that choice herself?

those who say that a woman shouldn't abort or should just give the child up for adoption clearly have no idea how awful the foster care system is and how many children are abused or victimized in the system or by their very own foster families
even in the case of adoption there is still the thousands of dollars worth of medical bills for doctors visits and giving birth itself

as someone mentioned, having children born into broken homes only leads to more problems later on when their in society

 

and say if someone actually decides to keep this baby, there are very scarce resources for women who can't afford to raise a child
fuck, half of the fucking house of representatives voted against the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act which was literally needed to address the shortage of formula which babies NEED

don't even say you're pro-life if you don't give a shit about a baby once it's popped out

 

taking away the right to abortions is only going to take away safe abortions. i'm not even going to comment on life threatening or etopic pregnancies because it seems like people would rather a woman die than have her terminate an already dead fucking fetus

This paragraph screams looking for societal utopia in which you will never find. Life is hard for everyone. Some start at a different position. I don't think I've seen one republican say if the mother is going to die she still has to go through with the pregnancy. Feel free to call me out if I'm wrong but you better cite a legitimate source. 

 

Theres more stock piles of baby formula at the border warehouse than in the Target up the road from the border. If your point is since they voted against it, which I'm also positive you don't know fully what was in that bill, they don't care about babies, then the left doesn't care about Americas babys.

 

Also, I was an unplanned pregnancy with a father who was never financially responsible enough to even pay child support. Lived in the shelter for a good portion of my life and when he wasnt in the shelter he was living on a friends couch in which I would go share that couch with him at someone elses house. Not the worst situation but surely not the best. Still would rather have not been aborted.

[Gentoo]

49 minutes ago, BoM said:

I got you covered, was already written.

 

Alright so what you have to understand about law is that it represents a collective group of people and what they feel is their 'right and wrong', both based on a moral compass and also the potential impacts on society which can but do not always weigh into someone's moral compass.

 

So I'll break that down clearly for you, here is my priority for anything related to laws, government, etc:

 

1. Does it agree with or conflict with my personal moral compass.

2. How does it affect everything else...societal impact, money, logistics, etc.

 

It's that simple, I weigh my moral compass over all the other bullshit. It keeps it clear cut for me, as I want to worry about the right thing before I worry about the financially sensible thing. I also want to clarify that my moral compass is built on logic, pragmatism, and what I find to be a crystal clear understanding of my emotions.

 

I am driven by that moral compass and compelled to argue for very clear laws stating that abortion is legal as is the right for doctors to perform those abortions throughout the country. I understand fully that this conflicts with a whole group of people and their moral standing, however I have a strong conviction about it. I weigh a woman's right to her own body and her right to carry on with her life in a way she sees fit over the life of an unborn baby, up to the point when that baby actually starts looking like baby...has a face etc. I can run down all the reasons scientific or otherwise that I have that hardline stop, though mostly just the thought of killing something that has a face starts to become harder to stomach...even more so something that has been proven to be able to live...i.e. premature babies and stuff. Prior to that I just don't respect that life in a sense that I would weigh it over the livelihood and even potential life of a woman.

 

I find it odd that it's like woman and children first, but also unborn children over women. So okay we don't really weigh women as highly as we pretend...interesting.

 

I also find most people don't actually take their moral stance and apply it to a personal scenario, only being able to talk about it in a general sense as if it has nothing to do with them and would never affect that.

 

Take it or leave it. Really I'd love to meet people in the middle, but if you can't come out and say 'abortion should be legal up to XYZ', unrelated to rape, incest, etc...then we fundamentally disagree on a moral level that I cannot look past.

 

Edit: Final thought - clearly easterpink see's that it his moral compass conflicts with others and simply wants to let each person make their own choice on it, instead of pushing that these people are solely in the wrong and it should not be allowed by anyone anywhere.

Bear with me, gonna go off the deep end a bit, but it's hard to have these discussions without reaching into the foundation of where your thoughts stem from.

 

Obviously the case has been made that someone else having an abortion doesn't directly affect me, assuming I'm not the victim of it lol. To be honest, I wouldn't want to have been aborted, regardless of the life I'd be brought into in the same way I wouldn't want my life cut short now. Sure it could be painless and obviously there'd be no regret to feel, but I prefer to life my life to it's potential and make my own decision about whether or not my own life is worth it, trying my best to make it worthwhile for others where I can. I already hear people typing "that's not a fair comparison" or "what about the person who got themselves pregnant's right to live their life to it's potential", so I'll concede that you're welcome to make those comments and it's not my main point.

 

Apart from the protection of life, or the potential of life, this has other indirect consequences that affect myself or society as a whole. Incel warning. Most of these posts seem to give off a vibe that there's some inherent right to risk-free sexual activity and that it's something that should be preserved or campaigned for - people no longer even bother tracing back to the inception or looking into the morality of responsibility anymore. I'm sure you guys can discern your own opinions on that and I don't have to say much more on that. Apart from that, I don't think that the idea of casual sex is good for society. I think the sexual dynamics and people's perspectives on it has had significant negative consequences on the mental health, ability to form relationships, perversion of youth, and building of functional families in both men and women alike. I don't think this is something we can just educate people on or solve in some other way like pulling more tax dollars into therapy or a more healthy form of sexual education. I think there's merit to preserving some of the immediate consequences of dismissive sexuality.

 

This is really a topic and perspective that deserves more explanation and discussion than the five minutes I took writing in my car, but I have other things to do with my time and don't want to derail to hard anyways.

 

On that note, I'm going to derail further and prod deeper into your moral philosophy with a completely unrelated question that's less controversial but should demonstrate the idea of indirect consequences on morality. I'd like you to take time to answer it prior to disparaging comments and picking apart the above perspective if that's not too much to ask. What's your stance on the morality of the accessibility of pornography to people under the age of 18 (or over for that matter) given the obvious side effects in can have in terms of addiction, negatively impacting person's perspectives on sexuality, the opposite gender, ability to from relationships, etc? Is this something that should be legally regulated?

[BoM]

20 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

Apart from the protection of life, or the potential of life, this has other indirect consequences that affect myself or society as a whole. Incel warning. Most of these posts seem to give off a vibe that there's some inherent right to risk-free sexual activity and that it's something that should be preserved or campaigned for - people no longer even bother tracing back to the inception or looking into the morality of responsibility anymore. I'm sure you guys can discern your own opinions on that and I don't have to say much more on that. Apart from that, I don't think that the idea of casual sex is good for society. I think the sexual dynamics and people's perspectives on it has had significant negative consequences on the mental health, ability to form relationships, perversion of youth, and building of functional families in both men and women alike. I don't think this is something we can just educate people on or solve in some other way like pulling more tax dollars into therapy or a more healthy form of sexual education. I think there's merit to preserving some of the immediate consequences of dismissive sexuality.

Y i k e s. People have been having 'casual sex' for as long as society has existed, to think otherwise is ignorant and just shows an innate lack of sex and sexuality as a whole. There is not a single point in history where people were only off having sex to have kids. Does the fun and thrill of it feed into our need to procreate? absolutely...but it is not solely why people do or should do it. You gotta be trolling me on this one.

 

Quote

On that note, I'm going to derail further and prod deeper into your moral philosophy with a completely unrelated question that's less controversial but should demonstrate the idea of indirect consequences on morality. I'd like you to take time to answer it prior to disparaging comments and picking apart the above perspective if that's not too much to ask. What's your stance on the morality of the accessibility of pornography to people under the age of 18 (or over for that matter) given the obvious side effects in can have in terms of addiction, negatively impacting person's perspectives on sexuality, the opposite gender, ability to from relationships, etc? Is this something that should be legally regulated?

Uhhh yeah don't really care, think it's good as is which is that you are 'supposed to be over 18' and is regulated by the parents for the most part. Should not be anymore legally regulated than it already is, leave it to the parents / therapists / etc. I really have trouble believing that crippling porn addictions are out there ruining society, and fact is people that shy away from sexual exploration seem to be ruining society more than those that are out there figuring out what they want from a girlfriend/boyfriend/partner etc.

 

Overall seems like you have a very narrow view on sexual activity as a whole, but not enough for me to really go down that rabbit hole because fuck that. Just not the place for it.

[Gentoo]

10 minutes ago, BoM said:

Y i k e s. People have been having 'casual sex' for as long as society has existed, to think otherwise is ignorant and just shows an innate lack of sex and sexuality as a whole. There is not a single point in history where people were only off having sex to have kids. Does the fun and thrill of it feed into our need to procreate? absolutely...but it is not solely why people do or should do it. You gotta be trolling me on this one.

I think simplifying it as "sex not to have kids" it's an obvious misrepresentation and sidestepping of the topic on your part, but maybe you did this unintentionally. Would you say it's inaccurate to say that sexuality has never been more lax, in general, and displays of such in media and public have never been more blatant?