Abortion
- Thread starter Danoff
- 2,594 comments
- 121,377 views
- 3,033
I think this post makes the most sense to me, 20 years old and all. The one thing I'd change is the good laws come from prior good laws idea, that's a stretch considering world history and all. Usually good laws follow in the footsteps of really bad oppressive laws. Like colonial United States, or modern Germany, or post communist countries.
Last edited:
- 2,616
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
One thread I didn't see anybody pull at yet in your notion of "irresponsibility" is condom failure rates. WHO estimates that when used perfectly, condoms fail 2% of the time.
Planned Parenthood says 450 million condoms are sold in the US each year. Let's say for the sake of argument that half of those condoms actually get used.* Do the math, and that yields 4,500,000 condom failures in the US every year.
Note that I said this number reflects perfect usage. The WHO goes on to estimate that the actual "typical" failure rate of condoms is 15%. Hard to argue that someone using a condom is being irresponsible, and not knowing how to properly use one is more a failure of our country's ludicrous approach to sex education than of personal responsibility.
Doing the math with that figure gives us 37,500,000 condom failures in the US every year. 37.5 million times every year where an abortion being used as a form of birth control wouldn't be "willy-nilly" at all, rather an option for people who, it turns out, had been perfectly responsible with their sexual behavior.**
*It's hard to say what that figure actually is, but it doesn't really matter. No matter how you slice it, we're talking about many millions of instances
** Mind, I don't buy into this nonsense argument about "responsibility" in the first place
Last edited:
- 2,194
- The failed experiment entitled “California”.
- 2,616
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
People actively trying to conceive wouldn't use a condom, but I see your point; the 37.5 million figure obviously needs to come down to account for condoms failing when a woman isn't ovulating in the first place. My point remains - abortion as birth control can be a very "responsible" option for many many people.
- 28,813
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Controversial abortion bill sidelined
HB 813 stripped of language that would have charged women who get abortions with murder
www.wwltv.com
Despite its future being unknown at present, I decided to dive into it as I hadn't been able to previously due to technical difficulties. When I took that dive, I happened on a couple of particularly bat**** provisions:
So any federal court ruling, which necessarily includes those of the Supreme Court, would be disregarded (Chief Justice John Marshall, per McCulloch v. Maryland, would like a word), and any judge in the state ruling in any way that conflicts with the statute would be subject to impeachment for that ruling alone.
I missed this before. Good stuff.
Nor should you as it's a total red herring.
Last edited:
Since the pro choice crowd here has shown me a lot of love in the other threads, I want to ask you something. What if I told you I was supposed to be an abortion and the only reason my mom kept me was because she felt guilty about the previous one? Would you be still be pro choice?
- 3,736
- St.Pete, FL
- NotThePrez
- NotThePrez
- 28,813
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Is the added information supposed to make the decision difficult? Yes, I'd still be pro-choice. You've opted to play the appeal to emotion hand, of course, but you just don't have the cards.
I'm anti-abortion. What gives me pause is the "what could be." I realize this isn't rational, though--seeing as nothing that could come of pregnancy is guaranteed to--and so even if I was the sort to deny an individual access to services to safely terminate a pregnancy, which I'm not, I really don't think I could use that which gives me pause as justification for prohibiting it. While I may be anti-abortion, I realize that under no circumstances is it my decision (including those in which my sperm has fertilized the egg), and so I'm oh so very much more pro-choice. It's not even close.
- 13,740
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I mean, that's one way to admit that you don't know what trolling is.
This one?
So that was in bad faith too? I assumed that was a legitimate attempt to find a way for women to continue to exercise their bodily autonomy despite the ridiculous laws attempting to remove that right from them.
It's not strictly a terrible idea on paper, it just will come up against the practical reality that the people making these laws aren't actually interested in protecting women. Roe v. Wade was based on a right to privacy, so wouldn't be unheard of for a decision that would replace it to depend on a seemingly unrelated right like the right to self-defence (which is a pretty solid embodiment of the right to bodily autonomy). But it won't, because it's not about what's legally right and supportable, it's about extremists enforcing their misinterpretation of scripture to drag everyone back into the dark ages by any means they can.
I guess that's my bad, I'll just assume that anything you post is a troll from now on.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,003
- Mile High City
The IUD ban is such an interesting case.
My wife correctly reminds me that an IUD is not really something that happens between fertilization and pregnancy, but rather something that happens weeks or months before. If you try to use an IUD after the egg is fertilized, it won't be effective. An IUD is a step that is taken long before fertilization by a woman who is not pregnant, before sex has occurred, by a woman who has no intention of becoming pregnant, and possibly has no intention of even having sex. There are non-pregnancy related reasons to want an IUD, getting rid of your period.
To ban IUDs is to tell non-pregnant women that if they have a uterus, that uterus must be made hospitable to any potential pregnancy, regardless of her intent or desires, regardless of whether she intends to use contraception, or even engage in sex. It is very similar in that regard to telling men that they cannot have a vasectomy. That also occurs prior to fertilization, prior to sex.
So clearly this is telling women, who are not pregnant, that the state requires their bodies to be ready for pregnancy regardless of their wishes. There's no conflict here, no baby, no fertilized embryo, no anything. Just a woman and her body. It's clear and obvious that IUDs cannot be banned.
It's completely unacceptable to the religious fundamentalists though. Because if the woman's body is not ready for pregnancy in this way, and never becomes pregnant (can't be an abortion without a pregnancy), then fertilization may occur within her body month after month, year after year. Dozens of lost souls. The hand of god infuses an egg with a soul, a new human has been brought into the world by divine light, and it is washed away to oblivion without ever having had a chance because a woman did not make her body available for pregnancy. Unthinkable injustice. So clearly the religious fundamentalist cannot tolerate this. Clearly IUDs must be banned.
My wife correctly reminds me that an IUD is not really something that happens between fertilization and pregnancy, but rather something that happens weeks or months before. If you try to use an IUD after the egg is fertilized, it won't be effective. An IUD is a step that is taken long before fertilization by a woman who is not pregnant, before sex has occurred, by a woman who has no intention of becoming pregnant, and possibly has no intention of even having sex. There are non-pregnancy related reasons to want an IUD, getting rid of your period.
To ban IUDs is to tell non-pregnant women that if they have a uterus, that uterus must be made hospitable to any potential pregnancy, regardless of her intent or desires, regardless of whether she intends to use contraception, or even engage in sex. It is very similar in that regard to telling men that they cannot have a vasectomy. That also occurs prior to fertilization, prior to sex.
So clearly this is telling women, who are not pregnant, that the state requires their bodies to be ready for pregnancy regardless of their wishes. There's no conflict here, no baby, no fertilized embryo, no anything. Just a woman and her body. It's clear and obvious that IUDs cannot be banned.
It's completely unacceptable to the religious fundamentalists though. Because if the woman's body is not ready for pregnancy in this way, and never becomes pregnant (can't be an abortion without a pregnancy), then fertilization may occur within her body month after month, year after year. Dozens of lost souls. The hand of god infuses an egg with a soul, a new human has been brought into the world by divine light, and it is washed away to oblivion without ever having had a chance because a woman did not make her body available for pregnancy. Unthinkable injustice. So clearly the religious fundamentalist cannot tolerate this. Clearly IUDs must be banned.
Last edited:
Jokes and gifs are okay, but playing along with them is not? Would need a mod to verify this.
No. the self defense argument was serious. The same states making blanket bans on abortion are also the ones that let you shoot someone in the head if you claim you feared for your life. If a doctor tells a woman her life is in danger if she keeps the baby, and the baby is already considered a human, then killing him/her is self defense. At least that's what I would argue.
I keep going back and forth on whether I should continue discussing anything here. So many of you are more tribal than I was expecting. Any opinion you don't like has to be a troll, returning account or kremlin stooge.
- 84,453
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
You posted something that wasn't true* specifically in order to get negative reactions. This is the textbook definition of trolling.
Not that you let definitions bother you. Of course this is far from the only bad faith tactic you've employed in the last few days.
*and it was an appeal to emotion, which everyone who responded (and several who didn't) saw right through
Hmm. The story is actually true. I just thought it's funny to bring up since you guys dislike like me so much you'd be willing to change your stance on abortion just to get rid of me. Was expecting funny responses like gun jokes.
Anyway, if an admin thinks that somehow any of my arguments is in bad faith, I'm going to stop trying.
- 84,453
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Well, now you've claimed both that it's true and that it isn't true. Which means both your original floating of it to garner negative reactions and your subsequent claim it wasn't true in order to garner further negative reactions are trolling, whether it's true or not.
It also means that nobody has any reason to assign any value at all to anything you post, because it's either a lie or something true that you're lying about being a lie.
It's not possible to have a reasoned discussion with you anyway.
On top of the flip-flopping and the appeal to emotion fallacy in this thread, there's the fact you apparently have private definitions for words and phrases, the fact you clearly deny reality, and the fact you invent things that other people haven't said and argue against them (the strawman fallacy) - all of which you did in just one response... to me. Which is why I just rolled my eyes and didn't bother answering because there's literally no point in doing so - you'll just make up some more stuff I didn't say, ignore facts, and redefine language to suit.
By your subsequent behaviour in this and other threads, it appears that this is habitual, and now you're trying to claim fault on behalf of other people too...
- 13,740
- Adelaide
- Neomone
So why did you frame it as though I'd already replied to one of your troll posts and you were disappointed that I hadn't replied to this latest one?
Why should I know? Because I responded to your self-defence argument without gun jokes or digs and treated it as a serious point, I should therefore somehow know that you were then joking and trying to set people up for a gotcha when you posted about being potentially aborted by your mother?
I'm not sure even you know what point you're trying to make any more.
No, you're just pretty bad at explaining exactly what your position is. You're here with a bunch of people who like to get into the weeds of a topic, and you can't even define the basic terms that you're using. You're going back and forth between trolling and (supposedly) making serious points, and then getting upset when people don't take you seriously.
Like, what do you actually expect to happen here? You're not convincing anyone of anything until you can put together a cogent argument, and even if you do probably nobody believes that you're not just ****ing with them any more because you've already poisoned the well. You might as well give up, because you came in and set yourself up as a bad faith actor and there's really no way out of that.
All opinions are welcome here, but people who are just wasting everyone's time are rightly mocked until they bugger off to go troll more fertile grounds like Twitter or Youtube comments. You'll find that the tribalism here is against people who don't engage in discussion seriously, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I think this says more about you than everyone else. You assumed that people here would change their stance because it was said by someone they disliked, because that's what seems reasonable to you. And then you were disappointed when it didn't happen.
Why would you assume that people would do that? I doubt it's happened before, I can't remember the last time I saw someone change their stance just to spite someone. Or is this what you would do in the same position?
Eh? I said you should know that I'm not anti abortion, specifically because you responded to my serious post where I asked if a self defense argument could be viable. My personal story was a clear attempt at getting you guys to say things like "tempting but still pro choice" or "best anti abortion argument yet". I actually thought some of the jokes coming my way were funny and wanted to see what I'm going to get with that one. I literally started that post by joking about how much you guys love making fun of me. I don't know how else I could've made such a post clear.
This I can somewhat concede. I do tend to start discussions by asking questions or making short responses. Butting in with a 2000 word essay is not what I do on message boards. I have also been very clear on my positions though, whenever asked.
Since you were one of a couple of members who were actually serious and didn't resort to jokes or attacks (bar that trolling accusation), I'm going to try to be very clear to you. IN MY OPINION, women have a free choice with abortion until the 6th month. After that, I think it should only be done if deemed necessary by a doctor or herself. I'm not sure how to legislate the word necessary here, but I'd be pretty lenient. Even if it's simply because she cannot afford to raise the baby, this is good enough for me.
Oh wow. I was a bit speechless reading that. I believe every time someone asked me a direct question, I've responded and clarified.
Out of all this, I'm going to insist that I did not flip flop especially with the private story I shared. My mother did indeed have an abortion before me. She did indeed keep me purely out of regret of the previous one. I am still personally not anti abortion. I have not retracted that in any way. I also said sharing the story wasn't to garner any negative reaction, just humor.
It's clear that the lens through which we read each other's posts on this sub section are very different. I try to be inquisitive (which you seem to interpret as a strawman argument), but most of you are trying to put me in a box. I'm going back to GT7. If anyone here wants to know what someone with unusual opinions to this sub has to say about something, feel free to tag me.
Was somewhat educational talking to ya'll.
- 84,453
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No.
A strawman fallacy is, as I just pointed out to you in the post you also just quoted, the practice of inventing things not said by someone and pretending that they did say that in order to argue against them. Look:
It has nothing to do with being "inquisitive"; it is a dishonest (and very common) discussion tactic. As is redefining things to suit - such as your attempt just then to redefine the strawman fallacy.
Good luck to anyone who continues to engage you in any discussion.
- 2,616
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
Why weren't you "very clear" from the start?
It seems like what you're saying is that you came in here, presented disingenuous ideas while assuming that
and then started looking for someone to pass your worthiness check before finally agreeing to bestow your true brilliance upon us all.
There's a lot to unpack here, but why would you come into a discussion assuming people don't like you? What relevance does it have to the topic if they like you or not? Are you sure you're not mistaking bafflement (it's pretty confusing when you give direct, serious answers to someone who, it turns out, was playing some weird mind games with you) for dislike? And again, why not be "very clear" in your very first post? What did you gain from all of this obfuscation and, yes, trolling?
- 13,740
- Adelaide
- Neomone
That wasn't an accusation. That was stating a fact in the clearest possible terms. What you did was trolling by your own admission, and pointing that out is not an attack. You can accept that or not, but it's not exactly up for debate.
Troll (slang) - Wikipedia
Maybe English isn't your first language. Among friends it might be called "banter" to do this (although you have to be a bit careful and you can absolutely lose friends by doing this wrong even in person), but you're the one who admitted that you assumed that people here disliked you. If you're trying to provoke reactions from people who you think are opposed to you (even if they're actually not) then that's trolling.
In your opinion, why the 6th month?
McLaren
Premium
- 44,475
- Texas
You thought if you brought up a very personal story of your mother possibly aborting you, we would suddenly change stance to agree with your mother & would make abortion puns at your expense b/c you think we don't want you not only here, but out of society?
That's dark, dawg.
Last edited:
