It’s kind of hard to provide a cite for something a person doesn’t advocate, short of that person actually saying “I am against (whatever)”. Cites usually don’t work that way.
Yes. I think the vast majority of liberals are already on board with comprehensive sex ed, and making birth control very easy and free to acquire. Some conservatives are too, but not those in Congress. Would you consider calling your congressperson, or otherwise advocating for such policies to other conservatives with the justification that they will prevent many unwanted pregnancies that would lead to abortion?
The Wikipedia article on Sanger is pretty good, and has references if you’d like to learn more.
Spoiler alert: by “irresponsible and reckless people,” she was referring to religious people who won’t prevent pregnancies they can’t afford, not Black people or poor people.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
It’s next to impossible to get a precise answer to that question.
Of course, it is equally impossible to get a precise answer as to man and/or women are ready to drink, engage in sex, marry etc., but that didn’t stop the creation of laws that establish precise limits and lines about those subjects.
I agree, which is why I didn’t ask you for a cite to prove a negative. I was just trying to clarify the thought process that led me to use the word “opinion”.
Thanks. As for the “irresponsible and reckless”, I had the vague notion it was some nexus of religiosity and poverty, but it was only a vague notion in my mind.
I agree.
If we as a people accept that such laws should exist based on somewhat arbitrary factors, then they’ll constantly be debated by those who think the restriction should become more lax, leading to more freedom for the affected individuals, or just as or more strict, leading to less freedom for the affected individuals. Though I think the determination of individuality/personhood/whatever is a bit different than someone readiness to drink or drive or get married. Or if it isn’t different, it is certainly more heated than most other arbitrary distinctions.
I was adding some salient and interesting points to the post I was responding to. Most pro abortion advocates say it’s a woman’s right to choose. And they do. I don’t know what the figures are in the USA for abortion but in Britain they are about 190,000 a year. That’s a lot over time. Don’t you think? What are the figures for the USA?
If there are any insulting comments here, it’s nothing to do with me.
Stating that liberals only care about people that will be voters on our side is something I find highly insulting.
“Mass abortion” is an inflammatory and inaccurate term to use when debating a topic that is already emotionally charged. Again, what did you hope to accomplish in this debate beside pissing people off?
Your first claim, I didn’t say. Just pointing out the (perhaps) unintended consequences. NOT UNLIKE those given in the post I responded to.
Don’t you think 190.000 abortions every year in Britain is a lot? I’ll ask again - what is the number for the USA?
I’m not going to participate in this hijack.
Everyone saw your post that I originally replied to, so trying to act all “whatever can you mean?” now is pretty disingenuous.
I stand by the questions that I asked, that you have not answered. Who is your audience? Who are you trying to convince? How well do you think you’re doing with that? Have you made even one person see things from your side? Or is your aim just to piss people off?
What number do you think appropriate, and why?
I’ll preface my response by saying that I share your view that debates like this are futile and frustrating and never change anyone’s mind, which is why, although I’ve wasted a lot of time in a few previous ones, I saw no point in engaging in this one.
However, that one point you raise is essentially the crux of the whole matter, though its been variously stated in different ways: at what point is a fetus human, at what point should it be deemed to be endowed with human rights, etc.
And ISTM that there are, in essence, two groups with two radically different views on the matter. One group might be called the agnostics: they are the scientists and moral philosophers who acknowledge that the question has no objective answer, and certainly no answer to which everyone will agree and which will be consistent with everyone’s equally justifiable personal values. They conclude that a decision about abortion must therefore be a deeply personal one, and not just a matter of ordinary personal liberty, but personal liberty of the most profound kind, rooted in the deepest personal values, emotions, and personal circumstances. And that it is, moreover, a matter in which the mother’s rights also figure prominently. That’s the meaning of “pro-choice” – it quite literally means, not the support of abortion, but the delegation of choice to the individual, and her morals and her medical caregivers.
The other group, ISTM, admits of no such subtleties or uncertainties. They have all the answers, even if the answers are simplistic and factually unsubstantiated answers to very complex problems. They are the Jeremiahs, and like raging prophets of the Old Testament they are not constrained by uncertainties or considerations of personal liberties: they will tell you exactly when a fetus constitutes human life – the are the ones who know, with fervent certainty, even if the answer is not just scientifically unsupportable but manifestly stupid, like “at the moment of conception”, and they will support their claim with the force of law, and exact criminal penalties against those who transgress. And they will do this no matter the inherent ambiguity of the matter, or costs to personal freedoms, or the personal suffering and trauma they cause, or the ultimate societal consequences.
This is the core of this debate, in my view. It’s the agnostics against the Jeremiahs, the rationalists against the raging prophets. Which is why it always stacks up as debate between science and religion, between reason and dogmatism, and in the milieu of social conservatism it’s somehow become politicized as a battle between liberalism and conservatism.
Although I wouldn’t paint every pro life activist with this broad brush, I think this still holds for a significant number of them. When you consider the numbers who are opposed to sex education, birth control and even the HPV vaccine for goodness sakes, it is clear that a substantial portion of the right desires punishment for those who engage in sex outside of stable monogamous relationships. Even to the point that they would prefer their daughters be faced with the possibility of cervical cancer as a consequence of sex, than have that possibility eliminated.
No, but a report of rape coupled with a rape kit is enough to start the process off - from what I’ve read*, rapes will have a higher incidence of both genital and extragenital injury, for example. Of course, many rapes don’t involve physical injury, but the incidence *is *higher.
*Mostly with a South African focus, YMMV.
You don’t have to like it. I think the once death to the mother is a high enough risk that it’s one life or the other, and abortion is definitely in order.
I also think that the lasting psychological damage that rape tends cause would be a fuck load worse if she had to carry, deliver, raise or give for adoption a child. That would be a horrendous thing to put anyone through.
On your second point;
I don’t believe in God, I don’t recall making any judgments and I don’t ride horses, regardless of how much they’ve smoked.
I don’t insist. I dislike them. It’s why they’re in quotes.
You don’t like my point of view, so I have no empathy? Interesting argument.:rolleyes:
There’s but a single entity in each of your examples. There’s two to make a baby and a different two(minimum) affected by an abortion. Though they are a medical in nature they also can’t be avoided by any one measure and a few may be genetic. The last one is similar to “I accidently had sex”. You constructed them to make yourself sound more reasonable I assume, reminds me of a straw man for some reason…
It is a consequence of choice. One with a single, direct cause.
On your ETA;
You were.
I’m not.
And you’re judging as well, it’s just that you feel you’re judgment is more righteous than mine. It’s ok, we all do it.
It was a colorful phrase. I used it because so many wil ride the “I want my choices” argument into into the ground. It indicates, within the context of my views, that a choice was already made by the time the choice to abort was at hand to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
The loss of life saddens me as much as the lack of personal responsibility that lead to it. Skydivers are great on the personal responsibility front, btw. They own that shit.
Anyways, what we have in most places is the choice to abort within a reasonable time frame. That’s probably the best option until science can catch up.
You’re evading the main point by talking about the exceptions. It’s just fine with you to take away a woman’s choices about her own body, and you’d do so without the slightest regret or compunction. And you justify it by saying “It’s her own fault.” As if you are in a position to judge let alone enforce against abortion by an individual.
I never said you did. You drew that implication. I said you suffer from the syndrome, and that it happens to be most common among the very religious. (Cute joke, btw, but you know exactly what I’m saying.)
Motivation really doesn’t matter, especially in a case where a roughly equal number of people in what is theoretically still a free society disagrees with them on that very point. The end result is the same. They believe it’s a sin, so they will attempt to legislate against it, regardless of the woman’s feelings on the issue or, to use a hackneyed phrase, her right to choose.
Btw, it’s a very similar argument to that which so-called ‘compassionate conservatives’ advance on a series of issues, not just abortion. Others just don’t know any better, so those who do must step in and control their behavior.
Well, theoretically it does in this context. Right-to-lifers whose motivation is to keep women afraid of sex, due to unabortable pregnancy being a consequence, aren’t likely to want to work with prochoice folks to reduce unintended pregnancy. So if they’re all like that (or most of them are like that), no such joint effort is going to materalize. But right-to-lifers whose motivation really is the horror of killing unborn babies etc etc might consider doing so. Not guaranteed even then, as I said upthread, but it’s less of a “snowball in hell” kind of scenario if you see what I mean.
Well said, and very close to the way I see it. On the last point, I’d say that it’s become liberalism vs. conservatism because that’s where the majorities lie. Most liberals are pro-choice and most conservatives are pro-life.
Americans Misjudge U.S. Abortion Views
[QUOTE=Gallup Polls]
Americans who profess no religious identity are the most heavily pro-choice, at 80%, with 15% calling themselves pro-life. This group is followed by liberals and Democrats, among whom pro-choicers outnumber pro-lifers by at least 2-1.
[/QUOTE]
Granted, that’s from 2013, but since then pro-choice has only gained against pro-life. From 2015:
Americans Choose “Pro-Choice” for First Time in Seven Years
(I’m also having trouble finding specific numbers on conservatives, but given the lopsided numbers for both liberals and Democrats it’s fair to assume that conservatives are, if not equally lopsided in the opposite direction, somewhere in the ballpark.)