I can almost guarantee that some #ProChoicers will show up to tell me that pandas are endangered and humans aren’t so it’s OK to kill human #babies. #ProChoiceLogic
I think this person doesn’t understand that pandas can’t communicate they don’t want to be pregnant, but human beings can.
Don’t tell them. They get defensive.
Change your ableist unoriginal title you piece of shit
I thought I’d seen anti-choicers try just about every ridiculous thing they could to argue their bullshit cause, but this is a new one.
I mean, holy shit. The anti-choicers are REALLY starting to grasp at fucking straws now, aren’t they? I can’t tell if I’m more amused or disgusted.
They will do ANYTHING to dehumanize pregnant people and instead try to assign personhood to a non-sentient fetus. I think their belief boils down to this: Save the unborn, but fuck actual human lives. They don’t matter. Just fetuses. That’s it. And then once babies are actually born, they can go to hell too, I guess.
Evil is real. And it often takes the form of an anti-choicer.
You do have our number there. “Evil” people can always be best described as “concerned about whether aborting/killing other humans at any stage of their life might be a bad idea”.
Some people might dismiss your eloquent little rant there as an “ad hominem attack” but not me because I’m sure that you have loads of data to back up all of your accusations about what we pro-lifers do and do not care about as a group. I was totally unaware that our “caring about human lives” ended with defending the rights of the most helpless humans who come to exist due to “choices” made by their mothers. I’ll have to address that at the next meeting. I do know how you guys love “choices”. You love them so much that you create new choices after your first opportunities to make choices don’t pan out.
I’m eager to read all of the data you have backing up your statement there since you guys love science so much that you embrace scientific “theories” and try to pass them off as facts and hard science. It’s a good thing that there are laws that back up those theories because once something is legal, it’s totally right and moral! Wait, that doesn’t sound right…
Well, in any case, if I’m an “anti-choicer” then I guess that makes you an “anti-lifer”…
Here is a thought experiment for you before I throw a bit of data at you:
You are walking down the street and you get pulled over by a cop and are told that you need to go to the hospital right now to donate your kidney to someone. If you do do this they will die. You never met this person before. Is this something that we should do? Think about that. Do you have control over your body, even at the expense of someone else? This means you do not get time to think about the decision. You just have to donate the organ as long as it wouldn’t kill you (Which is why I picked the kidney).
http://www.rnclife.org/brochure/rprolife.html : This link will show that republicans are pro-life. As sited above a low economic income has negative effects on a child’s upbringing. If you identify as a republican then I can assume that you are also in favor of other things Republicans are in favor of. Like making welfare harder to access, which is meant to help those with lower incomes.
(Just a side question, who is supposed to pay for all the medical expenses that come with pregnancy? Who is going to properly take care of the child in an environment that is ideal for development? Do any of these factors matter to you? Do you have solutions that you can demonstrate work? *spoiler alert* teaching abstinence is not the most effective method. I will grant you that it is the only method that is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy, but places where it is taught have extremely high teen pregnancy rates. Doesn’t seem like a viable method.)
http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2011/06000/Changes_in_Abortion_Rates_Betweeen_2000_and_2008.14.aspx: This link shows that people in low income areas are the ones that tend to have abortions.
Now lets look at that first link I posted. So it is about how Legal abortions have reduced crime. The theory is that since abortions occur, in large part, with people with lower incomes, that these children will be more likely to grow up to be criminals. If you allow for legal abortions, you reduce crime as an additional benefit to allowing autonomy to the woman.
The main thought experiment comes into play now. So do you like the idea of forced organ donations? If not then don’t force anyone to have their body used in a way they object to.
You may say that pregnancy is a consequence of having sex, and that abortion is side stepping a consequence. So should we just abandon medicine? Anyone that has food poisoning or a bacterial infection deserves it and should suffer the consequences. There are logical conclusions that you would also have to accept with the stance of “pro-life” that really is anti-choice.
I think that you already know that my answer is going to be that if I didn’t cause the other person to need a kidney, I feel very little responsibility to fix the problem.
I have read Freakanomics and they very clearly state in the book that they are using data to site a correlation between the legalization of abortion and the drop in the crime rate. The same result could have been achieved by people choosing to not engage in the behavior that creates life when they weren’t in a situation where they could properly raise a child and were unwilling to put that child up for adoption.
I know that people like you don’t care for religion but that is one of the core beliefs of most of them. I would say that since they teach that a child is ideally raised in a loving family and discourage behavior that would lead to a child being born outside of those circumstances, they might be on to something. I assume that you don’t care for all of the rules and morality that come with religious faith but I recall that Freakanomics also stated that people, and children in particular, need that sort of stuff to feel secure and balanced. I’m loosely quoting from memory here but you get the idea. I’m not trying to proselytize you, just making some observations.
I am not a Republican but speaking on behalf of my conservative view point, those who oppose social programs typically do so because they have proven to not work very well and prevent people from learning personal responsibility. We want all children to have the opportunity to be born AND learn to be productive and responsible. There are countless examples of people who were born into poverty and worked hard to rise above their humble beginnings.
Thank for responding and in a meaningful way. Now for my responce.
You seem to miss the idea that personal autonomy trumps the life of another. Let me give you a better example which would be very interesting to hear your thoughts on this one. You hold up a person at gunpoint and end up shooting them. These gunshot wounds do not kill the man but damage a both kidneys to the point where they don’t function. Should you be found guilty of the crime, would you think it to be fair to be forced against your will to donate one of your kidneys to this man. Oh and lets say you are Muslim. Should I force you to go against your religious convictions that prevent you from donating organs? Even when it serves to save another persons life? I would say no because I value autonomy. I feel like I and everyone else has a right to defend their autonomy.
I would say that the correlation is strengthened by the research paper shown as it tests the hypothesis by seeing if a prediction that would be true if the hypothesis were correct. This does not show causality, but strengthens the correlation. Your assertion that other means could of done the same thing are rather silly. I mean you could say that, but you need to test that. And we don’t really live in a world where sex in humans is primarily done for the function of producing a baby. People have sex for pleasure, and there is nothing wrong with that. A possible result of doing so is pregnancy, and if the person wishes to not have that stress put on her body she should not be punished for an action she took that caused two consenting adults to experience pleasure. I do not like the idea of using abortions as a primary birth control method, but that is the decision of the individual, and my personal feelings hold no weight in decisions that do not concern me. I wish they would use other forms of birth control, but I cannot force them to do so.
When it comes to religion, I will say that it makes people happy, sure. What doesn’t matter, as you have pointed out actually, just because something is a law doesn’t make it moral. Just because in your holy book it says something is right doesn’t mean that it is. This is because you are not able to demonstrate the existence of the said deity. So the fact that someone claims that an all powerful being said something means nothing when it comes to truth or morality because the existence of the thing that is claimed to have said it has not been verified. Also you can get into the whole topic of morality actually being subjective, but lets not get side tracked. So religion is not a good excuse to mandate that everyone follow their creeds. Well at least not before verifying that the creed giver exists, and is able to declare something moral, and it actually be moral, and many other contradictions. So I don’t care if you are religious and choose not to get an abortion. What I do care is when you advocate for other people, who may not have the same ideas as you, follow your ideas because something that has no evidence to support its existence said something that someone claimed was moral. That is not a valid reason. Religion gives people those things, but I don’t think that justifies the claims it makes. Things are not true because they make you feel happy. I have listened to many of the podcasts put out by them and I never heard that it was needed. I have only heard that in terms of happiness it is shown that people who are religious are more happy.
Ok that is fine what you said about social programs. Doesn’t mean social programs cannot work. Just the implementation is off. Also there are consequences to every action you take. You can erase mistakes, you can take medicine to kill organisms in your body that you got after eating food, and you can go in reverse in your car so you can go back to the street you missed. All of these things are consequences that happened due to a possible risk of normal situations. People should be accountable. I don’t disagree with that. I do disagree that people should be punished for doing something that is pleasurable that has a risk of doing something that they don’t want to happen. Let’s use another hypothetical situation. You need to change the breaks in your car. You don’t want to pay someone to change the breaks, so you look up online how to do it and realize you have all the tools needed to do this at home. You go out and buy the break pads and change them yourself. Now, with that action you have increased your risk of the break pads not being properly installed and the breaks not working suddenly. When you go out and drive do you now forfeit your ability to get medical attention for injuries you may incur from an accident cause by your faulty break instillation? If you happen to hit someone as a result should you be forced to donate blood to that person if you are a match and they need it to survive their injuries and there is no blood that is their match in the bank? This all comes back to the importance of autonomy. You have the right to say who can use your body for what. Doesn’t matter what the situation is. It is your body. You do not lose ownership and control of your body for any reason. At least I cannot think of a valid reason to do so.
I also appreciate the civility and the agreement to forgo a lengthy discussion on the subjectivity of morality.
I believe that there is a significant difference between forced organ donation and not being legally allowed to end a life that you created. Whether a pregnancy is the intended result of intercourse or not, it is well known that it is a very likely outcome. If we’re being honest, most unintended pregnancies result from a lack of birth control measures, not their failure. I fully support the right of a person to sterilize themselves if they wish to engage in intercourse merely for pleasure. I realize that my Catholic friends might disagree with that but while I respect them very much, I don’t subscribe to that tenet of their belief system.
Abortion is not cheap but in the minds of those who use it as de facto birth control, it is a lot cheaper than raising a child. Usually a lot of bad choices precede the point that pro choicers feel they have the right to make the “choice” in question. I think that we can agree that there are many choices that have undesirable outcomes for the chooser but once they’ve been made, there is no last minute choice at the expense of another human life that can course correct for the bad choice. Unintended pregnancy is among the least deserving of such a choice.
As for bodily autonomy, I realize that you reject the notion of it for the unborn but since science hasn’t definitely determined the point when human life officially begins, we’re looking at a legal designation here and I believe that we agreed that “legal” does not equal “right”. I would also like to point out that there are countless examples of legal interference with bodily autonomy without even going into Eugenics.
One cannot legally put certain substances/drugs into their own bodies. The question is frequently asked, “Who does it hurt if I’m doing it to myself?” This is a valid point on some levels that could be explored in a conversation on it’s overall societal effect but yet it remains illegal everywhere to do it. This same argument can also be made against abortion. How about seat belt and helmet laws? Prisoner restraints? Forced medication of mental patients? Legal judgments prohibiting habitual DUI offenders from drinking? Court ordered chemical castration of sex offenders?
Speaking of forced medication, while it may not be specifically illegal to kill oneself in many places, the police will stop you from doing it 100% of the time if they are able even if you state that you are “exercising your right to bodily autonomy”. You will then likely be restrained, institutionalized and medicated against your will.
I realize that we are unlikely to come to an agreement here and I don’t do this to convince your side. I do it to strengthen the resolve of mine. I can go point/counterpoint all day long with you just to show the pro-life readers that there’s a rebuttal for all of the pro-choice debate tactics. There are now more people who oppose legal abortion under most circumstances in the US than there are those who support it and my goal is to see it re-criminalized during my lifetime or at least lay the groundwork for that.
That being said, you are not my enemy. You have reasons for your beliefs and whether I agree with them or not, civil disagreement is essential to civil discourse and the continuance of our democracy. I try to be respectful to most of the bloggers I interact with but I reserve the right to be sarcastic if I’m cursed at or called names. I also typically don’t go into this much detail in my responses any more but, as I said, i appreciate your civility.
Ok let me explain something. You have rights. Those rights end when they begin to infringe on the rights of others. I never said that a fetus wasn’t a life. I actually used arguments where I used two humans to illustrate my point. I think a fetus has the same rights to life as I do. I do not grant it special rights as many anti-choicers do. I don’t think that any human is required to sustain the life of another using their body against that persons will. That is what an unwanted pregnancy is doing. It is a human using the body of another human against their will. The way you paint it makes pregnancy as a punishment.
Now that I have explained that I can explain why I think the ability to have the option of abortion available is a positive thing. If you are to give each human equal rights then abortion should be legal. So, when you have sex with a random stranger you have created a huge risk for contracting a sexually transmitted disease. i think we can easily agree on that point. I think that you would also agree that the risk is increased more by participants not using protection of any kind. If you get an STD you should be able to treat it, even thought you evaluated the risk and did it anyway. Pencils have erasers, mistakes happen.
Forced medication/restraints happens only when you can demonstrate one of the following four: You are a danger to yourself, a danger to others, are gravely disabled, or you lack the mental capacity. Most of these, except the gravely disabled are really a comment on the psychiatric health care system. In this area people with cognitive disorders are treated. This also is used in the prison system for similar reasons.
I would also say that the legality of an action only dissuades people from doing the action. It in no way stops it. Some of the laws that you pointed out are for societal health and stability, which actually the legalization of abortion shows a correlation to be a positive force in (the laws that you brought up that would fall into this category are drugs, seat belts, and helmets).
I would also like to your point that because a majority of people agree with something does not make that thing true. So to say that because over 51% of the population says abortion is bad, doesn’t make that true. Public opinion polls are not really great for deciding truth.
I would tend to agree with you. There is an ideological difference, not a personal one per say. Not to over simplify things to an insulting way, but I like to do crosswords in pencil and you like to do yours in pen. I just see so many choicer’s yelling that everyone should use pen and that pencils are evil. I just think that your choice to use pen is fine, and so is mine. I like my choice and think it would be more reasonable to use pencil. But I would never force you to use a pencil or a pen. Fuck, use a crayon for all I care. I understand that this is an extreme over simplification of the issue we are talking about. I hope you can observe the playful nature of the text and understand what I am trying to relay to you.
Given that you are sounding like you don’t really want to say more on the topic and that you have responded to my points previously, I won’t fault you or think I have “won” any more than I think I have. I use win because I think that I defended my points well, and feel I have come to a logical conclusion, just as you have probably done the exact same thing just with all of your arguments. I just find discussions fun, especially when people are civl about it.
I’ve enjoyed our discussion as well. I don’t encounter a lot of people like you who can keep it civil. I think we could probably sit down over dinner and have a great conversation if the opportunity ever arose.
I don’t mind your oversimplification at all. I agree with some of but not all of it. The only reason that I cited public opinion was in the context of my work against abortion. It takes agreement to bring action and results. I immediately dismiss anyone who uses any variation of the argument, “I’m right because many people agree with me.”
I appreciate your intelligent approach and don’t really care about the notion of “winning” the conversation. I’m sure that pro-choicers will feel that you won and pro-lifers will fell that I did. In the end, I care more about conversation and awareness.
Have a good holiday this weekend :-)Source: political-dissonance