The real strawmen are bullt by those nutjob pro-lifers whining how libtards hate them if they don't agree to abortions until pre-school kindergarden. There's a few heinous liars spreading that shit and cohorts of morons falling for iot.
I was pro-choice until I heard people talking about "day before" abortions and "post birth" abortions in public. Then to find out that some people are actually for that shit?
I do believe that family situation and the circumstances of conception should be considered, but I am starting to feel that I have to pick between extremes.
No, you don't have to pick extremes. Our "leaders" need to grow the hell up and stop treating our lives like a game. There are obviously compromises but because neither side wants to look like they might be weaker they refuse to play. Its why we were never supposed to have a two party system, there is enough diversity.
I will say, partial birth abortion has been outlawed, though only a few years ago, which I find horrific that it took that long.
Part of any discussion of abortion is setting a limit where abortion is no longer “abortion” and actually is “murder.” A baby is a baby- if it’s out of the vagina- it’s certainly now a person, it’s a citizen, and it has the same rights and legal protections as anyone. “Day before” abortions aren’t something I believe in where a medical need isn’t there- but the discussion of how late is too late for an abortion is an important part of the law, but no more a reason to outlaw abortion because some people have ideas that are different than ours anymore than we should outlaw sex or drinking on the whole because some people have opinions we don’t agree with on the details. We make a freedom available, and set limits where needed.
I'm really tired with people not being okay with compromise. The fact that Im being told that I have to be okay with 3rd trimester abortions or I'm a pro-life nutjob makes me feel gross.
That's the problem, the media as well as many politicians and even religious leaders have convinced people that its a black or white issue, either no abortion EVER or you have to be okay with dismembering a full term baby. There is so much room for compromise without leaving out humanity, but that doesn't seem to matter, especially to politicians.
Well this isnt just me exaggerating either. There are literally politicians putting legislation on the table right now for third term abortions because they want to be perceived as politically correct. This is some abhorrent stuff.
But on the other side of the fence, if I even say I'm okay with the morning after pill people will call me a baby murderer. Everyone just needs to calm down.
@interesting Is the legislation on the table to protect the life of the mother, or is there something awful I'm missing? It's my understanding that all over the world, third term abortions aren't okay except in fringe cases which make up just over 1% of the total. Those cases are where the mother and/or the baby will die in the birthing process.
Third term abortion is still legal, what isn't legal is Partial Birth Abortion, which, if you don't know what that is, for your own peace of mind, don't look it up. Sadly it was only made illegal a few years ago, and honestly, there is NO justification for it because if giving birth is supposedly so dangerous to the mother it totally defeats the point.
3
deleted
· 4 years ago
"I was pro-choice until I heard people talking about "day before" abortions and "post birth" abortions in public. Then to find out that some people are actually for that shit? "
So let me get this straight: some random idiots on the net talk about this so you reconsider your former pro-choice opinion, but when actual politicians plan actual laws to actually have actual doctors performing abortions after 6 weeks face an actual execution, your pov is "nah, that won't happen anyway so it's a strawman"? Dafuqs wrong with you? Too much lead in the tap water? Inhaling too much gunsmoke? Parents are siblings?
Conflating again. I never commented on any of the proposed laws or punishments.
The closest I got was another thread where I stated that overturning Roe v. Wade would be rolling back federal overreach.
There’s a line that must exist obviously. At extremes we obviously can’t call literally just thinking about having a baby and then deciding not to murder, nor can we call mensuration or ejaculation outside procreation murder. We also can’t we’ll call it a 47th trimester abortion of you change your mind down the road. The principal of law already existed to prevent post birth abortion- a person is defined in law and includes the phrase “has been born..”
So there’s quite a bit of contextual and logical support for arguments against such abortions, and a strong argument against non medically prudent late term abortion. The problem as others have said is that people get very emotional about this subject and stop seeing logic and either go off emotional reaction or just a drive to not be “proven wrong.” But NO FREEDOM is without some restriction in our society. Even your body your choice- you can’t choose legally to kill yourself, you can’t legally choose to graft body parts from a cadaver to you in all circumstances or clone your self or even do many genetic experiments on yourself.
3
deleted
· 4 years ago
Yeah, sorry @famousone I mistook you for another moron, when in this very detail you're probably less moronic. Honest mistake.
But like any issue taking an extreme stance isn’t the path of democracy. We can call out those who seek more extreme leniency with abortion but in this same thread we are discussing law makers who used tax payer money and tied up legal and other resources while causing division just to pass stunt bills that by most accounts they knew wouldn’t hold up- and that’s my point. Extremism breeds extremism. If I bid $50 and you counter bid $40, we will likely settle somewhere between 41-49. People know this and so a tactic now days is if you want 41-49 you bid 5000 so when they bid -5000 you’ve protected your bid, and if they don’t respond in extremes you get more than you would otherwise.
But think about that- as a negotiation tactic- what would really happen if you did that and neither side could just walk away? You’d just both argue and dicker longer with more ill will than if you’d both started reasonable. So this binary extremes of ideologies is causing us harm, not helping people’s causes. Insulated media bubbles play up the most ridiculous antics of “the other side” so that we see ourselves as having less common ground, we see “them” us unreasonable and dishonest lunatics we can’t negotiate with.
That’s why it’s more important now than ever that we not only avoid broad labels and preconceptions, but that we ourselves make every effort to avoid extremism. This is a democracy- we all have to live in it together. In our “negotiation” I’d be happier getting $50 and you’d be happier paying $40, but if we can settle for 41-49 neither one of us will be as happy as we could have been but we can both get a fair deal and be somewhat happy. Everyone is so concerned with what they want- but the basics of civics in a democracy is judged on how well everyone else is doing, not on the absolute happiness of one person or group.
There is so much to unpack here that I haven’t been able to reply. Firstly I would like to help you by explaining what some of the words you used mean. “Murder is illegal.” Ok. Good. That is correct- but redundant. See- KILLING is not illegal- but the very definition of murder is an illegal killing- so by definition of we kill something legally- a fly, a cow, a prisoner on death row- that isn’t murder because it IS killing- but it is LEGAL killing, which means by default it is not murder.
Now- the next critical definition is “kid.” No synonym for “kid” in the English language is “fetus.” The closest we get is infant or baby. No synonym for either of those things is “fetus” either. By pure definition a fetus is not a kid- in legal definition a fetus is not even a person, and in scientific definition a fetus is a distinct developmental form from any other stage of human development. So MURDERING a KID or any PERSON is illegal. The killing of any PERSON may or may not be legal. The termination of functions of a fetus are not anymore illegal than the humane termination of a dog or cat.
So if you meant it SHOULD be illegal and considered murder to abort a fetus- that’s an opinion you’re certainly entitled to- however for your opinion to count as law you’d have to support it to a burden of proof that showed why that should be illegal- not simply that you consider it immoral. Case in point- plenty of people would argue eating meat should be murder- it is the taking of a life certainly- and they are strongly morally opposed to it sure. And despite biological and functional or cognitive differences they consider a cow to be equal to a human in that it is “alive” and a complex organism- but should we ban eating meat unless necessary on the grounds some people find it morally repugnant- or is it more apt to allow you that choice even though others might not like it?
Let’s not get into comparing the two- the main point is simply that what you or anyone else BELIEVES- and what they can back with evidence and a substantiative argument that is legally and scientifically grounded aren’t equal in value when we are determining what other people should be able to do is it? Should vegans be able to ban you from eating meat because you are a murderer in their eyes?
I do believe that family situation and the circumstances of conception should be considered, but I am starting to feel that I have to pick between extremes.
I will say, partial birth abortion has been outlawed, though only a few years ago, which I find horrific that it took that long.
Those are just fucked up
So let me get this straight: some random idiots on the net talk about this so you reconsider your former pro-choice opinion, but when actual politicians plan actual laws to actually have actual doctors performing abortions after 6 weeks face an actual execution, your pov is "nah, that won't happen anyway so it's a strawman"? Dafuqs wrong with you? Too much lead in the tap water? Inhaling too much gunsmoke? Parents are siblings?
The closest I got was another thread where I stated that overturning Roe v. Wade would be rolling back federal overreach.