also tend to have documented cases of forcing mistresses or unmarried relatives to have an abortion.
1 Like
I would be surprised if anyone wasnât both pro choice and pro life.
I thought the issue was if you were for or against abortion?
I also donât really like the idea of âus vs themâ that some people love so much. âpro-lifers are also racists/misogynistic/care more about guns than womenâs rights/etcâ. You can easily respond with âpro-choice are communist/social justice warriors/rioters/terrorists/etcâ.
These kinds of statements only serve to fuel the fire. They do nothing to address the issue at hand. Itâs disappointing.
2 Likes
Thing is, âprolifersâ tend to accept themselves as not supporters of womenâs rights, supporters of guns, etc, while they just attach labels like âcommunist (itâs seriously so funny and also disgusting that this is still considered an insult, America and its terror in the face of communismâŠ)â, âterroristâ etc. to people who support respect of womenâs rights just because they want to attach negative labels to them.
You canât be partially for human rights. You are or your arenât (or pretend to are, usually). Inb4, anyone can claim being anything, this doesnât make it true.
It is an us vs them because itâs literally them vs us.
Also:
This person who happened to pass by on the opposite side of the road made me imagine they might invade my home.
-OK, hereâs a right to own a massive weapon and on top of that a right to kill them and pay no price.
This person invaded my body.
-Nah, itâs your fault, get punished for it, carry that fetus, raise it and bear all burden. Nobody cares what happens to you. Also, no help from the state and the father, they have nothing to do with this.
Yeah, picking sides is us being drama queens.
I donât mean the comparison as an âus vs. themâ.
I just want to understand how, for example, a politician can proclaim on the same day that abortion is the illegal murder of unborn humans, as they can advocate for a law that makes it possible to buy assault rifles without permit.
I want to understand why there is no need to restrict access to weapons that kill completely innocent people on a daily basis, but there is a dire need to restrict the possibility of future mothers to kill their unwanted fetus. Why donât the same arguments that hold for the latter case apply to the former?
2 Likes
Because it has nothing to do with human life and a lot to do with social standards.
1 Like
I think the logic is that a gun is not bad in itself. It is bad when used by criminals, but good when used to defend yourself against criminals. Think of a knife: it can be used to kill innocent people, or to peel an apple. There is no reason to prohibit knives.
Note: I am anti-gun because I think that guns do more harm than good, I just wanted to say that the thoughts of people who are at the same time pro-guns and pro-life are not completely illogical.
2 Likes
Not that I really want to dive into this topic but e.g. Nearly 800 arrested in London in just one week in massive crackdown on knife crime - MyLondon â in fact there is a good reason to prohibit certain kind of knives.
I think itâs quite similar with firearms, there might be usages for hunting/culling animals among other things, and maybe in America you might have reasons to think a handgun is a right to own for safety. It seems hard to argue that automatic or certain semi automatic guns are really necessary or not âbadâ in the same way some knives arenât just going to be used for peeling apples.
1 Like
All kinds of objects can kill people. Even a drop of orange juice and a hen feather can kill people. The thing here is that the juiceâs original purpose is not to kill. Nor is the featherâs. The gunâs is.
The gunâs purpose it to kill. You donât buy a gun to fry cucumbers or to wash the linen. You buy it to kill.
2 Likes
Conservative christians in the US want to impose their religious morals onto society as a whole, at the expense of limiting freedom of people to do things that are sinful according to their interpretation of the bible.
At the same time, moderate christians and secular humanists want to impose their humanistic morals onto society as a whole, promoting freedom of people, as long as this doesnât disproportionally infringe on the freedom of others. The bible is not consulted in these matters.
These views seem fundamentally incompatible.
1 Like
I understand that, however the main question is whether it is a crime to kill criminals or not.
When abortion laws were recently voted in Poland, the other countries (mine included) rolled their eyes and forgot about it, because âPolandâ. Now we are suprised that it also happened in the USA when no one was looking.
One argument Iâve heard by reasonable âpro-lifeâ people is that the child could be allowed to be born and then given for adoption. Which, in my mind, raises three issues:
- foster homes and hostels are not paradise on earth
- the mother is like a coffee-maker: coffee in, espresso out, bye
- donât we have enough orphans already?
Î΀Î
Exactly my thoughts.
5 Likes
You obviously know what I mean.
But since apparently I have to spell it out:
Someone can say they are supporting womenâs rights and at the same time say women belong in the kitchen.
Just because they say they support womenâs rights they canât force us to not take into consideration the rest of their statements.
Itâs one thing to respect someoneâs opinion and another to support absurdity just because.
Iâm not interested in throwing stones into the air and calling it a bird just because âArgUMentâ. There are other people with those inclinations here, you can all have fun among you.
1 Like
Itâs the same thing with Poland that was with Ukraine.
Shocking only because âunexpectedâ. US is such a progressive paradise, and Ukraine is so white and European, how can things happen there that happen to that backwards Poland and Middle East, respectively?
1 Like
Ah yes, employers being assholes again.
Companies can also try to soften the blow by helping workers identify potential new opportunities. Employers can say, ââCompanies A, B, C and D in the area are looking for talent, and we can make that intro for youâ,â says Taylor.
I canât laugh enough.
2 Likes
In the Netherlands, abortion was legalized in 1984. What that law meant was that doctors who performed abortions were no longer committing a criminal offense, so they no longer needed to worry about being prosecuted (even though that was already uncommon before the legalization). Same with euthanasia/assisted suicide in 2002.
Even before those procedures were legalized, I donât think the person who underwent such a medical procedure was committing a criminal offense. So women were not prosecuted for having an abortion. It was just more difficult to find a doctor who was willing to perform the abortion.
Those procedures were being performed before legalization, but by legalizing them, the government could prescribe regulations on required formalities and such.
1 Like
I would say this is the crux of the matter.
Itâs going to happen (it always, always was a thing that happened) but at least by being legal there are regulations.
And not prosecuting women for miscarriages.
And societally, if itâs an acceptable option, usually the whole related education is more open. Abortions happen more when women are oppressed, not less.
8 Likes
Abortion is either legal or illegal. You quoted a poll result with 45% in favour of illegal and 55% in favour of legal, and used that as an argument to say abortion should be illegal. And you explain that it wouldnât be âvery democraticâ to make it legal. I do not follow your logic.
Turning your argument around: âBut when more than half the country thinks it should be legal, thatâs not very democratic to proclaim it as a crime.â
3 Likes