‘I love my child. But if I could go back in time and get an abortion, I would 100 per cent of the time,’ says Melinda. Kelly Rissman reports on a story that exposes the hurdles women faced before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in June 2022
If you believe a fetus is a human being I don’t see how you could be pro choice, that’s how I understood your comment at least. Being pro choice is predicated on the idea that a fetus isn’t a human yet. I don’t know any people that can argue that a fetus is a human child at conception and also be pro choice.
Honestly we need to change the way we fight against abortion. The Republicans have successfully made the issue a “murder” issue when it’s really an issue of keeping government out of medical decisions as well as severe lack of education about sex. No women want an abortion , they just don’t want to be pregnant. If we fought to drive education about contraceptives and risks of unprotected sex abortion numbers would plummet.
I’ve heard arguments that abortion is justified even with fetus personhood because nobody has a moral obligation to serve as a host for anyone else without informed consent. You have the right to do anything whatsoever with your own body, regardless of how much someone else needs it.
We’ll that’s an argument I guess however consent is not the end all be all of free will. You can not give a fetus personhood and be pro choice because at that point you accept that abortion is murder, taking the life of another human. Your right to choose does not supersede another persons right to live.
Not to mention they consented by having unprotected sex (barring instances of rape of course)
i mean this isn’t really my stance but i’d be willing to play devil’s advocate: a human fetus is a child at conception, i just believe in a utilitarian way that allowing for abortion is more optimal for society than not; in the same way we are all okay with regularly performing castration on pets and animals, a practice typically viewed as horrible and gauche but that we accept for a utilitarian reason (i.e, we have all decided that getting your cat/dog “fixed” is acceptable because it makes the pet significantly easier to deal with behaviorally.) this is still castration tho, they suffer many of the same health problems that human beings do when getting prematurely castrated. remember when the whole internet was outraged over castratos from the 1800s and how terrible a practice it was? we allow that to happen daily to millions of pets, and no one bats an eye. why? because we decided it was simply better, more utilitarian. the same applies to being pro choice in this way, if that was your belief system. you can acknowledge that there do exist similarities between murder and abortion, it is intrinsic to the act. you can also hone your rhetoric beyond stupid regurgitation and realize there are more concise and precise reasons to think the “correct” things, and that in spite of you not walking the world this way yourself these rhetorical paths are still incredibly important for the means of outreach. you suffer from a metaphorical head up the ass, friend, at least that’s what it seems. people are so quick to dismiss and judge anything they’re not immediately aligned with now… the divisive nature of the commons will be the death of us
this is flawed from the start. how can something be a fetus at conception when doctors don’t use that term until 8 weeks at the earliest?
re: pets & neutering - this logic will get you nowhere with theists because of the humanity exception - the animals were put here to serve us (according to them), we’re above the system, not part of it. Hence man being created in god’s image yadda yadda…
frankly the amount of downvotes i’m getting combined with the way you immediately begin arguing against me? missing the point.
after your first rebuttal: can you come up with a way to justify this that doesnt have to do with what doctors are already deciding? i know i might seem like an asshole right now, but i genuinely want to find rhetoric here that works in justifying this point to all people, the place it would be most useful in, not just circlejerking the people who already think this. we can circlejerk all day. doesn’t accomplish anything. you completely are missing the point that arguing against the made point is futile because no true advocates of that point are actually here. does nothing interest you in why the midwest seems to hold that sentiment so dear? or are they just racist yokels to you? are you so blindingly upset by the idea of what they think that you can do nothing but tirade in response to it? jesus fucking christ there will be one singular issue in my life i “both sides” it for, and it’s this. zero fucking empathy from anyone these days.
second: that’s a valid point, this crowd would likely respond in turn with that exact argument. i guess my response in turn would be i know their argument is invalid, and you in turn giving me the proper rebuttal accomplishes nothing. it would be more conducive to explore why these people respond this way. is it not interesting to you why these people draw an equivalence between “animals” and “man” in the way they do? or are we just going to bookmark them as stupid and forget about it? jesus fucking christ.
the response here is my exact problem with rhetoric in the spaces i occupy. i don’t want to be binned in with the same right wing dumbasses i detest, obviously, but blindly lashing out against anything that looks like the enemy? despicable. there’s no thought or reason to it
they were able to reframe the ‘signs of life’ as ‘when a heartbeat is detected’ - yet it’s not a heartbeat. it’s not a fucking heart yet. And this isn’t controversial interpretation, it’s literal biological development. How can a ‘heart’ beat without VALVES? the entire concept is flawed.
We’re talking about blastocysts growing into embryos. There aren’t organs. There’s a bit of goop that’s trying to differentiate into many parts, it looks far more like something you’d sneeze out than a wee baby.
If you believe a fetus is a human being I don’t see how you could be pro choice, that’s how I understood your comment at least. Being pro choice is predicated on the idea that a fetus isn’t a human yet. I don’t know any people that can argue that a fetus is a human child at conception and also be pro choice.
Honestly we need to change the way we fight against abortion. The Republicans have successfully made the issue a “murder” issue when it’s really an issue of keeping government out of medical decisions as well as severe lack of education about sex. No women want an abortion , they just don’t want to be pregnant. If we fought to drive education about contraceptives and risks of unprotected sex abortion numbers would plummet.
I’ve heard arguments that abortion is justified even with fetus personhood because nobody has a moral obligation to serve as a host for anyone else without informed consent. You have the right to do anything whatsoever with your own body, regardless of how much someone else needs it.
We’ll that’s an argument I guess however consent is not the end all be all of free will. You can not give a fetus personhood and be pro choice because at that point you accept that abortion is murder, taking the life of another human. Your right to choose does not supersede another persons right to live.
Not to mention they consented by having unprotected sex (barring instances of rape of course)
i mean this isn’t really my stance but i’d be willing to play devil’s advocate: a human fetus is a child at conception, i just believe in a utilitarian way that allowing for abortion is more optimal for society than not; in the same way we are all okay with regularly performing castration on pets and animals, a practice typically viewed as horrible and gauche but that we accept for a utilitarian reason (i.e, we have all decided that getting your cat/dog “fixed” is acceptable because it makes the pet significantly easier to deal with behaviorally.) this is still castration tho, they suffer many of the same health problems that human beings do when getting prematurely castrated. remember when the whole internet was outraged over castratos from the 1800s and how terrible a practice it was? we allow that to happen daily to millions of pets, and no one bats an eye. why? because we decided it was simply better, more utilitarian. the same applies to being pro choice in this way, if that was your belief system. you can acknowledge that there do exist similarities between murder and abortion, it is intrinsic to the act. you can also hone your rhetoric beyond stupid regurgitation and realize there are more concise and precise reasons to think the “correct” things, and that in spite of you not walking the world this way yourself these rhetorical paths are still incredibly important for the means of outreach. you suffer from a metaphorical head up the ass, friend, at least that’s what it seems. people are so quick to dismiss and judge anything they’re not immediately aligned with now… the divisive nature of the commons will be the death of us
this is flawed from the start. how can something be a fetus at conception when doctors don’t use that term until 8 weeks at the earliest?
re: pets & neutering - this logic will get you nowhere with theists because of the humanity exception - the animals were put here to serve us (according to them), we’re above the system, not part of it. Hence man being created in god’s image yadda yadda…
frankly the amount of downvotes i’m getting combined with the way you immediately begin arguing against me? missing the point.
after your first rebuttal: can you come up with a way to justify this that doesnt have to do with what doctors are already deciding? i know i might seem like an asshole right now, but i genuinely want to find rhetoric here that works in justifying this point to all people, the place it would be most useful in, not just circlejerking the people who already think this. we can circlejerk all day. doesn’t accomplish anything. you completely are missing the point that arguing against the made point is futile because no true advocates of that point are actually here. does nothing interest you in why the midwest seems to hold that sentiment so dear? or are they just racist yokels to you? are you so blindingly upset by the idea of what they think that you can do nothing but tirade in response to it? jesus fucking christ there will be one singular issue in my life i “both sides” it for, and it’s this. zero fucking empathy from anyone these days.
second: that’s a valid point, this crowd would likely respond in turn with that exact argument. i guess my response in turn would be i know their argument is invalid, and you in turn giving me the proper rebuttal accomplishes nothing. it would be more conducive to explore why these people respond this way. is it not interesting to you why these people draw an equivalence between “animals” and “man” in the way they do? or are we just going to bookmark them as stupid and forget about it? jesus fucking christ.
the response here is my exact problem with rhetoric in the spaces i occupy. i don’t want to be binned in with the same right wing dumbasses i detest, obviously, but blindly lashing out against anything that looks like the enemy? despicable. there’s no thought or reason to it
they were able to reframe the ‘signs of life’ as ‘when a heartbeat is detected’ - yet it’s not a heartbeat. it’s not a fucking heart yet. And this isn’t controversial interpretation, it’s literal biological development. How can a ‘heart’ beat without VALVES? the entire concept is flawed.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/02/1033727679/fetal-heartbeat-isnt-a-medical-term-but-its-still-used-in-laws-on-abortion
We’re talking about blastocysts growing into embryos. There aren’t organs. There’s a bit of goop that’s trying to differentiate into many parts, it looks far more like something you’d sneeze out than a wee baby.