Abortion 2: Electric Boogaloo

[Gentoo]

Just now, Wawa said:

But do you have a problem paying for the yacht of the CEO of the company you work for, assuming you do sell your labor for a wage?

I do not work for a corporation, but good guess.

[Pyro Looga]

11 hours ago, ThRza said:

In case you're still having a hard time let me break it down for you.
 

The idea of comparing the position "I think women should have the right to an abortion" to "I think that killing babies is a right" is so fucking asinine that it's baffling you don't see it as a distortion of the original position. Rather than have an actual discussion about the ethics of abortion, you've opted to shut down any sort of opposition by inferring that any and all support of abortion rights is the same thing as advocating for killing babies. See it's much easier to argue against your opponents when you say they're baby killers than it is to drop the loaded bullshit, say they support abortion rights, and argue from there. 
 

To take this one step further, I'm going to go on record saying none of you people think this is even remotely comparable to murder, if you were you'd be way more up in arms about all of this. I mean you seriously expect me to believe you give a shit when all you can muster is a simple "It's baby killing lol". If you really want people to take your position seriously try making real arguments instead of this fake ass one sentence bullshit.

Anyways my take on this issue is the same as it has been for a while. Blah blah republican hypocrisy, blah blah they're making it harder to access contraceptives, blah blah they're providing inadequate sex education. If anyone's pro-abortion it's the right-wing of this country. Take a look at Arkansas' teen pregnancy rates if you don't believe me.

a·bor·tion

noun

1. 1.

   the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

   "concerns such as abortion and euthanasia"

    

   It's not a strawman argument. plain and simple. the only reason it's insane to you is because you flat out don't even try to understand anything about it. Just because they haven't been born yet doesn't mean they're any less valuable as a human life. To me it just seems like a lot of people don't want to accept the repercussions of having sex in the first place. And to say that pro-lifers don't compare it to murder is just flat out wrong, people do care, they are against it. your whole argument is just pathetic nonsense. exe. Hur duuurrr akchually republicans are pro abortion hurrr durrr. 

    

   Oh and before any of you guys bring it up, I do support abortion in certain scenarios like rape, incest, or if it will kill the mother (including miscarriages) 

[Wawa]

8 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

I do not work for a corporation, but good guess.

Ok, well good on you for being consistent with liberalism then.  Still though, it would make more sense to not allow the outlaw of abortion then so that the child doesn't become a burden to society if the mother is and was unwilling to care for it, no?

[Lead Pipe]

15 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

Nobody having the responsibility to care for the children. I don't want to pay or care for someone else's kids, and I think most other people don't either. If it's not your responsibility, I sure as hell shouldn't be involved in paying for raising it.

You have some serious brain worms if you think that banning abortions which allows people to not have kids they would not want would save you from paying for their kid.  Since they will now be forced to birth the unwanted child they will probably put them up for adoption which costs us about 12 billion a year as of 2011 and that was with abortion available.  Now with rising child care costs and the amount of unwanted children being born the cost to the tax payer will just rise.   

[Gentoo]

21 minutes ago, Wawa said:

Ok, well good on you for being consistent with liberalism then.  Still though, it would make more sense to not allow the outlaw of abortion then so that the child doesn't become a burden to society if the mother is and was unwilling to care for it, no?

Ethically, I think the life should be protected as any other so no, but in our current state we do have systems in place for society to take care of the child. Ideally, I think the responsibility should be on the parents - permitting the graceful adoption by someone willing, but these potential parents should act responsibly if they don't want to face the consequences for their actions.

 

20 minutes ago, ♥Never_Mind♥ said:

You have some serious brain worms if you think that banning abortions which allows people to not have kids they would not want would save you from paying for their kid.  Since they will now be forced to birth the unwanted child they will probably put them up for adoption which costs us about 12 billion a year as of 2011 and that was with abortion available.  Now with rising child care costs and the amount of unwanted children being born the cost to the tax payer will just rise. 

Yeah this is ends over means thing and I think you missed the flow of the discussion on it.

[ThRza]

59 minutes ago, Looga said:

 

It's not a strawman argument. plain and simple. the only reason it's insane to you is because you flat out don't even try to understand anything about it.

Easy on the accusations there buddy. I used to be anti-choice myself. It's not that I "don't' even try to understand anything about it", it's that I just changed my mind.

Just because they haven't been born yet doesn't mean they're any less valuable as a human life.

Explain to me how a fetus is comparable to a fully developed human being. Explain to me the value of a fetus that is going to be aborted. What benefit is there in preventing that fetus from being aborted? What about the mother? Shouldn't the value of her physical and psychological well-being factor in as well? 

To me it just seems like a lot of people don't want to accept the repercussions of having sex in the first place.

 

Maybe because raising a child is a huge fucking financial, physical, and psychological undertaking. What do you suggest people do if they don't want kids, not have sex? That's extremely unrealistic.

 

And to say that pro-lifers don't compare it to murder is just flat out wrong, people do care, they are against it.

 

Literally never said they didn't compare it to murder, try reading next time. What I said is that most of you fuckers believe it, at least not truly. If people genuinely believed that babies were being murdered en masse there would've been a whole lot more hell being raised than what's been seen.

 

your whole argument is just pathetic nonsense. exe. Hur duuurrr akchually republicans are pro abortion hurrr durrr. 

>Calls my statement nonsense
>Doesn't elaborate
>Mocks me 

Christ you should have just drawn me as the soyjack at this point, what a fucking joke.

Republicans are against comprehensive sexual education in schools, they're against easy access to contraceptives, and actively block legislation that would outlaw child marriage. The former two lead to lower pregnancy rates, less unwanted pregnancies, and thus less abortions. I don't think I have to explain the third one. Republicans constantly shut down policies that would lower the amount of abortions, why is that? If they were against the concept of abortions wouldn't it make more sense to push for legislation that'd lead to less of them? Even if you banned abortion abortions would still happen, if they pushed for the aforementioned policies above they'd curb abortion rates even more. Oh and shoutout to all the republican lawmakers who made their mistresses and wives get abortions after accidentally getting them pregnant.

Oh and if you really believe in the value of a fetus so much then it'd make no sense if you weren't aggressively pro-vegan. I will not elaborate.

[Wawa]

23 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

 Ideally, I think the responsibility should be on the parents - permitting the graceful adoption by someone willing, but these potential parents should act responsibly if they don't want to face the consequences for their actions.

Ideally, every child should be brought into this world under responsible and willing parents.  Unfortunately, we do not live in this idealistic world.  More specifically to the US, we don't even live in a country that even actively tries to live in such a world.  If we did, we'd be addressing major socioeconomic issues such as poverty and homelessness.  Instead, the wealthy will still have access to safe abortions while the poor and working class will be the ones most negatively impacted.  If you want to take an ethical stance, fine, but the reality is that one class in this country is getting fucked once again while the other could care less since it has marginal impact on them.  Also, who's going to hold the wealthy accountable from an ethical standpoint when they continue to get abortions?

[Aster]

14 hours ago, BoM said:

Requiring her to carry it to term, generally some 5-6 more months (93% of abortions performed in the first 13 weeks)...which can be both physically and emotionally detrimental to the woman. Not to mention potential pregnancy complications, which based on tentatively factual data I'm looking at is about a 1 in 10 chance if not more. Just not about demanding that a woman put her own body through that.

 

Thinking you misunderstood quality of life...I'm talking about the quality of life for the woman being forced by law to carry a baby to term. Her quality of life for those 9 months and thereafter. I won't even get into the negative mental effects that it would have on those women for being forced to do that, which also puts a greater threat of complications for the mother and baby.

BoM, if you're making these claims, I expect you to back them up with actual data from trusted sources. Disregarding that you don't have any evidence for these claims about mental/physical stability, this seems to be the exception.

https://www.bcbs.com/the-health-of-america/reports/trends-in-pregnancy-and-childbirth-complications-in-the-us#:~:text=About seven out of every,nearly 31% increase since 2014.

 

In this study, conducted by Blue Cross Blue Shield, it shows that per 1000 pregnancies, these rates of complications and mental conditions stay relativley low compared to the overall amount of pregnancies. This study also covers that these individuals may have preexisting mental conditions as well, that were not prevelant before hand. 

(You can see that they also state an increase, but they don't speculate why in the article, so take that as you may.)

 

The overall point I'm getting at here, is that you are trying to use the exception to justify the majority. If one person dies from a car crash out of every 1000 people, should we make it illegal or heavily restrict the ability of the average individual to drive? No, absolutely not. If the complications from a pregnancy stay increasingly lower than how many are actually taking place, just because there is a chance for the mother to have these complications, should they have the option to kill a human, just because there is a chance of it? No, this is illogical and an incoherent argument.

 

Also, I didn't even mention the medication and the medical treatements women have acess to while they're pregnant.

[BoM]

18 minutes ago, Aster said:

BoM, if you're making these claims, I expect you to back them up with actual data from trusted sources. Disregarding that you don't have any evidence for these claims about mental/physical stability, this seems to be the exception.

I...don't care?

 

I'm stating my opinion based on knowledge I've gained, statistical evidence, and other factors. I've made responses mostly based on questions prompted to me.

I am not here to debate with sited sources nor convince you or anyone else to change their mind or prove I am right and they are wrong.

 

P.S. your graph, which I did find last night but found to be looking at too small a scope of data, shows that complications actually occur in about 2 in 10 pregnancies, not 1 as I had stated. So not sure what you're trying to dismiss with that data. 196 in 1000 people is pretty significant...that's not just the exception.

[Aster]

36 minutes ago, BoM said:

I'm stating my opinion based on knowledge I've gained, statistical evidence, and other factors. I've made responses mostly based on questions prompted to me.

I am not here to debate with sited sources nor convince you or anyone else to change their mind or prove I am right and they are wrong.

First, the knowledge that you gained means nothing if you can't back it up. Second, a debate is just a formal discussion about a particular topic with an opposing side, which you engaged in with me.

 

38 minutes ago, BoM said:

P.S. your graph, which I did find last night but found to be looking at too small a scope of data, shows that complications actually occur in about 2 in 10 pregnancies, not 1 as I had stated. So not sure what you're trying to dismiss with that data. 196 in 1000 people is pretty significant...that's not just the exception.

 

 

By definition, it's the exception.