- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
- Messages
- 12,099
- Reaction score
- 3,439
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Maybe nobody reading actually wants abortion to be entirely banned?Still waiting to hear from pro lifers on this.
Still waiting to hear from pro lifers on this.
Still waiting to hear from pro lifers on this.
This is a question for people who are pro life, people who want abortion all together banned. What about cases of maternal life, where the mom is suffering from complications from the pregnancy and could die if she doesn't get an abortion? Some countries such as Venezuela, Paraguay, Madagascar, and certain African countries ban abortion but make exceptions of the mom's life is in danger, and then there's countries such as Nicaragua which ban abortion all together even if the mom's life is in danger. So in Nicaragua even if the mom could die if she keeps the baby, she cannot legally get an abortion. Usually if the mom dies the baby dies too. So do you agree with countries such as Nicaragua?
Here's my problem when people use extremely rare circumstances like medical emergencies or rape to bait pro-lifers into a "gotcha!".
Pro-choice people aren't making these arguments out of empathy for sick mothers or rape victims. They're making them to justify their position that abortion should be free, legal, and on demand for everyone. It's a red-herring.
Even if pro-lifers did make a compromise to support abortion in these extremely rare cases, it wouldn't change anything. Pro-choicers wouldn't be any happier and they'd certainly continue pushing a wider agenda to have abortion legalized completely and unreservedly. If you really were concerned about medical emergencies or rape pregnancies, we could all easily come together and set a reasonable compromise. But most supporters of abortion won't do that because they want much, much more.
For the record, I would 100% support abortions for these cases if it meant we could also put in reasonable limits on the other 99.9% of abortions.
If you really were concerned about medical emergencies or rape pregnancies, we could all easily come together and set a reasonable compromise. But most supporters of abortion won't do that because they want much, much more.
For the record, I would 100% support abortions for these cases if it meant we could also put in reasonable limits on the other 99.9% of abortions.
Ban abortions and you create a prohibition of back alley clinics.
But the problem is that the pro lifer is not asking for a reasonable compromise. Instead they are demanding that their compromises be seen as being reasonable when they are not.
Nor do i need to use sick mothers or rape as a justification. At best they would be used to point out just how ludicrous is the contradictory nature of the pro lifers argument.
Abortion should be legal as it is a medical issue and not a legal issue.
Discussing the morality around ending a human life isn't reasonable? Sorry, you're wrong.
You give any pro-lifer an early deal right now and they'd take it without blinking. Free, taxpayer-funded abortion with 5-star service on demand for any woman raped or suffering from a medical emergency, in exchange we get to put reasonable measures on the other 99% of abortions (ie, eliminating abortions out of convenience, regret, dissatisfaction with the gender of the child etc). I'm pretty sure even the Pope would take that deal and put a generous amount of money forward to fund it.
That's called a compromise. We are willing to satisfying the pro-choice movements biggest justification for abortion, and all we ask is that you do the same for ours. But pro-choicers would never go for it because they don't give a damn about these cases of burdened women. They just use them as mascot for their cause.
The driving purpose for "pro choice" (actually pro-murder) is for a "woman's right to choose", like you said. But what about the 50% of abortions upon babies who are female? Why don't they get to have the choice of living and not being murdered because her mom wanted to try having sex without a condom because it'd feel better? The term "pro choice" as it's usually meant is the complete opposite of that meaning.I did not say a discussion was not reasonable. i said that you are demanding that your compromise be seen as reasonable.
Your particular compromise is ludicrous and rejected. Mainly because it is nothing more than hyperbole.
A woman's reasons for getting an abortion is between her self and her doctor. Not a political football for you to own.
Nor is making ridiculous suggestions like 5 star treatment anything more than a sign of just how little thought or intelligence you have put into thinking this through.
Your morality is complete bull****. You obviously care more for an idealist position than you do for human life as you are quite ready to disregard the life being had by the woman who must according to you have no say in how she spends her life.
You are of course wrong. The biggest justification for the pro choice side is that as you have just demonstrated, your lack of an ability to say anything sensible on the subject. That and the actual fact that the real justification of pro choice is that it is a woman's right to make a choice, not yours.
The driving purpose for "pro choice" (actually pro-murder) is for a "woman's right to choose", like you said. But what about the 50% of abortions upon babies who are female? Why don't they get to have the choice of living and not being murdered because her mom wanted to try having sex without a condom because it'd feel better? The term "pro choice" as it's usually meant is the complete opposite of that meaning.
Once again we are given an excellent example of how the pro life do not give a reasonable argument but instead demand that their comments be deemed reasonable when they are not.
It is not pro murder that is simply a attempt at an emotional argument. Nor is attempting to demonise women a reasonable argument.
Says the person who was not aborted.There is no compromise needed. Abortion should never be legislated. It is a matter between a woman and her doctor. Thankfully, in my country, it's a medical issue, not a legal one.
Hi there! So a couple things to address this question. First, I want to contextualize this argument because I have often heard health challenges for the mother used as an argument to justify all abortions, including those in perfectly normal and healthy pregnancies, and I do not believe this is a legitimate argument to justify abortion.
First of all, late-term abortions (when the baby has the chance to survive outside of the womb) or partial-birth abortions are never needed to save the life of a mother. In dangerous situations, babies are delivered, often via c-section, such as in the case of Placenta Previa which threatens both the mother and the baby. So this argument has to be restricted to pregnancies very early on when the baby will not survive outside of the womb, and health challenges cannot be used to justify late-term or partial-birth abortions.
In the case of very early abortions where the baby will not survive if delivered, life threatening situations in the case of pregnancy are very rare. Even Planned Parenthood director said, "Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” So it is an extremely small percentage of lives that are threatened by pregnancy and this small percentage should not be applied to all abortions and be used to justify it.
So just to put this in context, health complications cannot justify abortions where the child has to chance to survive outside the womb and are rarely an argument for early pregnancies. But let's say we are in the very rare situation where the mother's life (not health but life) is in danger. First of all, a doctor cannot say with certainty that the mother will die if the pregnancy continues. There are cases where the risk is high that she will not survive the pregnancy, but doctors cannot predict the outcome with certainty, and in fact there are many incidents when a doctor has said a mother may die if her pregnancy continues, yet she chooses to carry her baby and both she and the baby survive the high-risk pregnancy just fine. So I don't think an abortion is justified if the mother "might" die because if there is the chance both she and the baby will live, the doctors should do all they can to keep both the mother and the baby alive, rather than killing the child. I don't believe a possible death is justification for a certain death. And because there has not been a situation where a mother is guaranteed to die if the pregnancy continues, I believe that instead of ending the life of the baby, the solution should be to fight for the lives of both the mother and baby. Situations where lives are lost during pregnancy is terrible and heartbreaking, so thankfully we live at a time when medical technology can do so much to protect the lives of mothers and babies involved in high-risk pregnancies.
Ban abortions and you create a prohibition of back alley clinics.
Ban guns and you create a prohibition of black market gun dealers
Dude...simply saying "your opinion doesn't count because I don't like it" isn't an argument. You are the exact definition of the problem on both sides. You refuse to compromise, mainly because you can't even recognize a compromise when it presents itself.
All reasonable people agree that women should be able to have an abortion in cases of rape and murder. Most Republicans would gladly put that on the table in exchange for reasonable restrictions around the remaining abortions, at which point we can continue the discussion until another compromise is reached, and another, and another until we reach a perfect middle ground. The fact that you don't even want to entertain the thought of trying and simply claim that Conservative allowing women to have an abortion in necessary cases is not a compromise (when it clearly is) shows you don't care in the slightest about right, wrong, or equality. You care about power and your agenda. Stop using false sympathy and the trauma of rape victims or dying mothers as a herald for your cause. It's despicable.
Says the person who was not aborted.
The so-and-so that birthed me should have aborted. All of her pregnancies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?