This is not at all surprising. If "life starts at fertilization" then IVF tosses a whole lot of fertilized embryos. Most contraceptives prevent implantation rather than fertilization so the fertilized egg is discarded. Both of these are at risk from where I sit.
So are miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and all those plumbing problems that can hinder normal birth. Eventually, it will end up having women as bed-ridden brood mares to prevent them from risking their fetus through action. But then, as George Carlin said, the second they're born, they're screwed. They're not pro-life they're pro birth. Once alive, kids are on their own.
Yeah, that's absolutely swinging back too far. Both extremes are pretty stupid IMO. And this completely undermines majority of people who actually hold more moderate views.
(Abortion is a states responsibility, not federal, and should be limited to the first trimester, are my views, for example)
Sounds like we found a male who not only doesn’t have to deal with the repercussions of any pregnancy complications, but hasn’t known anyone personally that has had to deal with a late term pregnancy complication.
You are the exact type of individual that should. It have any day in this debate. It doesn’t affect you and you’re imposing your beliefs on other people who don’t share your viewpoint.
I specifically meant no reason abortion being limited. Of course, medically necessary abortions should be legal at any time. Sorry for not spelling it out properly.
The forced-birth crowd overlaps strongly with the "that 13 year old was clearly asking for it" so that argument doesn't work (the primary reason for forced birth is to punish women who dare to have sex).
But also, while I get what you're saying, it's a diversion: no one can force you to do anything with your body, or undergo any medical procedure, for any reason, even to save someone else's life. The only case where an exception is made, is when it involves controlling women, which has always been the case.
If you have a matching kidney for someone who will die without it, no one can ever force you to give up your kidney, and that's not even something that kills you.
If it's an emergency and someone will die without a blood transfusion, and you're the only person with the right blood type, no one can make you donate blood.
It doesn't matter if it's a stranger, or your child, no one can ever force you to do anything with your body, no matter how many lives it would save.
Forced birth however, especially in america with some remarkably biased birth mortality rates (black women are 2.5x more likely to die in labour than white Americans, some states have 2x the mortality rate of others), means being forced to risk your life and body against your will. Especially egregious because the most pro-forced birth Staes in america are among those with the highest labour mortality rates, and the lowest amount of support services for the mothers or children.
Again, the mortality is a convenient side effect, the primary purpose is to punish the women who dared to have sex.
Except it's not alive, or a child, the law explicitly says so.
But anyway, you understand that you're demanding specifically that women alone should be subject to a medical procedure to protect the life of a fetus, but once a child is born then they aren't required to undergo any other medical procedures to save the life of a child that is actually alive. Because that's what the law is currently: no matter the cost, physically, emotionally, or financially, all women shall be required to go through pregnancy.
And that is the _only_ case, and women are the only subjects of such mandates.
There's no law requiring that the father have all blood and compatibility tests in the even blood or organ donations are needed. The law is very clear: it does not matter if performing a medical procedure on one person will save another, you cannot force anyone, in any circumstance, to undergo that procedure.
The only people, and the only case, where this is exception is made is conservatives who are primarily concerned about controlling others.
It's like those shitheads who then go "put the child up for adoption" but then shit on and underfund the foster system (the pro-birth crowd are super determined to ensure such services are underfunded, because they don't actually give two shits about children), and have not adopted a single child (because again, this has nothing to do with caring about children, and everything to do with punishing women who for whatever reason get pregnant).
So yeah, I have no problem thinking of forced-birth people as being self serving assholes who don't give two shits about anyone other than themselves.
> Except it's not alive, or a child, the law explicitly says so.
From my reading, that indicates you support abortion under any circumstances at any time. Is that correct?
My position is, that it makes sense to use prevention first and foremost, then third trimester there can be an abortion for any or no reason, afterwards with reason.
Yes, the foster system is shit and needs a lot of fixing.
I feel you are portraying me as someone who wants to outlaw any and all abortion, which is pretty much the opposite of my original comment, in that such measures as in the article undermine the process of finding a compromise that works.
People are already arguing with your stated position (even HN is not immune to flames occasionally) but what I am getting from your statement is there are likely some majority consensus positions for certain situations – even if it's not what we usually hear in the debate.
What we often hear on contentious issues is each side accusing the other of bad faith, at which point productive discussion becomes very unlikely.
Well yes, the conservative viewpoint is that women should not have bodily autonomy, and contraception and IVF are both that. It’s why pharmacists are allowed to force their religious beliefs on others: it would be a violation of a pharmacist’s religious freedom to require them to do their job if a women comes in for birth control.
This was never about just abortion, every conservative state has taken the position that morning after and birth control pills are also the same as abortion. This is documented fact, and anyone who votes in support of those people, is explicitly stating that they are anti basic women’s rights.
20 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 54.4 ms ] threadSo are miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and all those plumbing problems that can hinder normal birth. Eventually, it will end up having women as bed-ridden brood mares to prevent them from risking their fetus through action. But then, as George Carlin said, the second they're born, they're screwed. They're not pro-life they're pro birth. Once alive, kids are on their own.
(Abortion is a states responsibility, not federal, and should be limited to the first trimester, are my views, for example)
You are the exact type of individual that should. It have any day in this debate. It doesn’t affect you and you’re imposing your beliefs on other people who don’t share your viewpoint.
If that includes being born, and the birth is a medical procedure, then I guess I am advocating for it.
Way to ruin two lives at once.
But also, while I get what you're saying, it's a diversion: no one can force you to do anything with your body, or undergo any medical procedure, for any reason, even to save someone else's life. The only case where an exception is made, is when it involves controlling women, which has always been the case.
If you have a matching kidney for someone who will die without it, no one can ever force you to give up your kidney, and that's not even something that kills you.
If it's an emergency and someone will die without a blood transfusion, and you're the only person with the right blood type, no one can make you donate blood.
It doesn't matter if it's a stranger, or your child, no one can ever force you to do anything with your body, no matter how many lives it would save.
Forced birth however, especially in america with some remarkably biased birth mortality rates (black women are 2.5x more likely to die in labour than white Americans, some states have 2x the mortality rate of others), means being forced to risk your life and body against your will. Especially egregious because the most pro-forced birth Staes in america are among those with the highest labour mortality rates, and the lowest amount of support services for the mothers or children.
Again, the mortality is a convenient side effect, the primary purpose is to punish the women who dared to have sex.
But anyway, you understand that you're demanding specifically that women alone should be subject to a medical procedure to protect the life of a fetus, but once a child is born then they aren't required to undergo any other medical procedures to save the life of a child that is actually alive. Because that's what the law is currently: no matter the cost, physically, emotionally, or financially, all women shall be required to go through pregnancy.
And that is the _only_ case, and women are the only subjects of such mandates.
There's no law requiring that the father have all blood and compatibility tests in the even blood or organ donations are needed. The law is very clear: it does not matter if performing a medical procedure on one person will save another, you cannot force anyone, in any circumstance, to undergo that procedure.
The only people, and the only case, where this is exception is made is conservatives who are primarily concerned about controlling others.
It's like those shitheads who then go "put the child up for adoption" but then shit on and underfund the foster system (the pro-birth crowd are super determined to ensure such services are underfunded, because they don't actually give two shits about children), and have not adopted a single child (because again, this has nothing to do with caring about children, and everything to do with punishing women who for whatever reason get pregnant).
So yeah, I have no problem thinking of forced-birth people as being self serving assholes who don't give two shits about anyone other than themselves.
From my reading, that indicates you support abortion under any circumstances at any time. Is that correct?
My position is, that it makes sense to use prevention first and foremost, then third trimester there can be an abortion for any or no reason, afterwards with reason.
Yes, the foster system is shit and needs a lot of fixing.
I feel you are portraying me as someone who wants to outlaw any and all abortion, which is pretty much the opposite of my original comment, in that such measures as in the article undermine the process of finding a compromise that works.
What we often hear on contentious issues is each side accusing the other of bad faith, at which point productive discussion becomes very unlikely.
Clearly I shouldn't have, because this turned into a flame war.
This was never about just abortion, every conservative state has taken the position that morning after and birth control pills are also the same as abortion. This is documented fact, and anyone who votes in support of those people, is explicitly stating that they are anti basic women’s rights.