Support NeoGAF

[Draft]

This is what the people of Ohio want. Elections have consequences.

 

[DragonSworne]

Why do these politicians waste their time and taxpayers money?

 

[Slayven]

Don't want abortions but don't want to have safety nets for people.

 

[Linkark07]

Abortion isn't a moral right, though.

The burden is yours to demonstrate to everyone why terminating a human life is a choice that is morally neutral.

And who are you or anybody else to decide what a woman can do with her body? You can't force anyone to have a fetus 9 months inside her own body, much less force that person to take care of a creature she probably doesn't wants.

 

[kmag]

It isn't simply banning abortions that prevents abortions from occurring. A social movement that fosters dialogue and education about the moral status of the newborn is a precondition for any social development on the issue.

Also, the article indicates that the abortion rate doesn't skyrocket after banning it, so there's no utilitarian argument to be made here.

If abortion is morally wrong, it's still wrong regardless of whether banning it doesn't decrease the rate of illegal procedures.




I need you to defend the view that a woman's choice overrides the innocence of a human life. That's a moral proposition that seems self-evidently false, so I'll need you to provide an argument to defend it.

At what point does it become a human life? Because it's certainly not at conception.

 

[Aristion]

Because a woman has bodily autonomy.

Saying that abortion should be banned or immoral is literally telling women that they don't have the right to control their own bodies.

Does a siamese twin have the right to terminate her sister if the latter is considered a burden upon the former?

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

And who are you or anybody else to decide what a woman can do with her body? You can't force anyone to have a fetus 9 months inside her own body, much less force that person to take care of a creature she probably doesn't wants.

Because Aristion declares moral authority over what "life" is and demands we all follow his view.

 

[Blader]

Encouraging a pro-life culture would inevitably lead to less abortions. Whether we like it or not, the law acts as a pedagogue in ways that social movements usually do not. If we gradually pass legislation that restricts abortions, over time the public would be educated on the moral status of the unborn and perhaps more women wouldn't resort to illegal means of procuring abortions.

Abortions did not come into existence in 1973.

The only thing passing more restrictions on abortion does is encourage women to either have illegal and dangerous abortions in the country, travel outside of the country for abortions (not an option for lower- or middle-income women), or have children that end up abandoned, given over to the system, or raised in households that do not have the means to raise children.

If you want to reduce the number of abortions, you should be promoting sex education and making access to birth control as free and easy as possible in order to reduce the potential for unwanted pregnancies.

 

[RDreamer]

Awesome, I'd love to. So you think that intelligence is a necessary prerequisite for moral value?

Can you explain to me why recently born human infants are intrinsically more valuable than pigs (the latter of which are more intelligent than the former)?

I didn't say that at all. I said the soup of cells a lot of times has both no intelligence or feelings. I also said that the concept of bodily autonomy is a moral right that women have. Irregardless of whether it has any moral value, a substance with no feeling or intelligence certainly has less moral value than the right of someone to their own body.

 

[Maxim726X]

At what point does it become a human life? Because it's certainly not at conception.

And this is the part where these arguments start going around in circles.

We're not changing their minds, we're not changing ours.

Win some fucking elections, please. Then perhaps we can weed out the Christian conservative right.

 

[notsol337]

Abortion isn't a moral right, though.

The burden is yours to demonstrate to everyone why terminating a human life is a choice that is morally neutral.

You're using morality as if it means "good and bad" when it's not.

Morality is the scale used to decide what is good and bad.

So, here's a morality scenario for you.

A woman is raped by her uncle, and it leads to a pregnancy. She does not tell anyone until she finds out she is pregnant. That baby is now protected by this law, and the baby has severe genetic disorders due to the incestual nature of it's conception.

Is it morally right to force her to live a life raising a baby she didn't ask for that consumes all her resources and ruins her life because the alternative is ending a human life?

 

[DragonSworne]

And this is the part where these arguments start going around in circles.

We're not changing their minds, we're not changing ours.

Win some fucking elections, please. Then perhaps we can weed out the Christian conservative right.

This.

Stop debating and starting winning elections. Want to keep abortion legal? Vote

 

[Kas]

My great great grandmother died of a back alley abortion in Boston in the 20s.

So fuck pro-lifers. You just do more harm to women than anything else.

 

[Princess Viola]

Does a siamese twin have the right to terminate her sister if the latter is considered a burden upon the former?

Do you really not see the difference between a woman getting rid of something that, for the vast majority of the times when a woman has an abortion, literally CANNOT LIVE OUTSIDE OF HER UTERUS vs what you just said?

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Does a siamese twin have the right to terminate her sister if the latter is considered a burden upon the former?

You understand there have been cases where conjoined twins have one die due to the inability for a single body to properly care and host twins, right?

 

[Not]

Encouraging a pro-life culture would inevitably lead to less abortions. Whether we like it or not, the law acts as a pedagogue in ways that social movements usually do not. If we gradually pass legislation that restricts abortions, over time the public would be educated on the moral status of the unborn and perhaps more women wouldn't resort to illegal means of procuring abortions.

Well, not in all these countries:

Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

Abortion rate goes down the less unwanted pregnancies there are brah. How do you get less of those? Treating sex like it's a normal thing that's fine. Liberal policies.

 

[Alucrid]

You're using morality as if it means "good and bad" when it's not.

Morality is the scale used to decide what is good and bad.

So, here's a morality scenario for you.

A woman is raped by her uncle, and it leads to a pregnancy. She does not tell anyone until she finds out she is pregnant. That baby is now protected by this law, and the baby has severe genetic disorders due to the incestual nature of it's conception.

Is it morally right to force her to live a life raising a baby she didn't ask for that consumes all her resources and ruins her life because the alternative is ending a human life?

maybe Aristion's next step is to have her and the uncle marry

 

[hypernima]

It isn't simply banning abortions that prevents abortions from occurring. A social movement that fosters dialogue and education about the moral status of the newborn is a precondition for any social development on the issue.

Also, the article indicates that the abortion rate doesn't skyrocket after banning it, so there's no utilitarian argument to be made here.

If abortion is morally wrong, it's still wrong regardless of whether banning it doesn't decrease the rate of illegal procedures.




I need you to defend the view that a woman's choice overrides the innocence of a human life. That's a moral proposition that seems self-evidently false, so I'll need you to provide an argument to defend it.

You seem to have the utmost faith in the concept of a social movement being an end all means to fostering morality when for years most of us have understood how the human condition is, not just black and white. You've already made the decision that a woman's choice does not override an innocent life. So what possible defense can be made to you, if you have already chosen against it?

Does a siamese twin have the right to terminate her sister if the latter is considered a burden upon the former?

The siamese twin is not the mother of the sister so this argument is pretty useless.

 

[Aristion]

I didn't say that at all. I said the soup of cells a lot of times has both no intelligence or feelings. I also said that the concept of bodily autonomy is a moral right that women have. Irregardless of whether it has any moral value, a substance with no feeling or intelligence certainly has less moral value than the right of someone to their own body.

Is consciousness (feelings) a prerequisite for moral value? A pig has a richer conscious life than a recently-born infant.

 

[necrosis]

Not for long.

Hey, we knew shit like this was going to happen. But emails. That's the really important story here.

I'm really pessimistic about what will be coming down the pipeline politically for this country, but I think it would be difficult to overturn Roe vs. Wade at this juncture (it would require Ginsburg or Kennedy to resign/die and even at that point it wouldn't be a certainty).

 

[jfkgoblue]

God, abortion debates on here are the worst. You have the one or two pro-lifers saying fetus is a life, getting dogpiled by the majority saying it is about the "woman's body". Neither of you guys are gonna convince the other side and it's the same exact argument every single time it comes out with both sides claiming the moral high ground.

It is a highly divisive issue with the country evenly split on it, but neither side is convincing the other and literally turns into the circular argument that gets no one anywhere.

I'm thoroughly convinced that pro-lifers just want to punish women for having sex.

see this is just troll bait looking to get a pro-lifer to argue, come on dude.

 

[DragonSworne]

I'm thoroughly convinced that pro-lifers just want to punish women for having sex.

 

[Linkark07]

Because Aristion declares moral authority over what "life" is and demands we all follow his view.

Yeah, by now it seems clear that this is true:

We're not changing their minds, we're not changing ours.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Is consciousness (feelings) a prerequisite for moral value? A pig has a richer conscious life than a recently-born infant.

Yes, because we value consciousness on upper-limits as well as current limits and not just "oh, it's a dumb baby, who gives a fuck". We value human life over other animals because WE ARE HUMAN. Not that hard to wrap your head around. If you want to talk about why we eat meat and kill things, I don't think an abortion thread is a place for that.

You still haven't answered my question, when does life start?

 

[Gigglepoo]

Then perhaps we can weed out the Christian conservative right.

That's an unfair way to categorize these people. Christians are concerned with helping people; conservatives just want to control people. That's a huge difference. No one with strong religious beliefs would deny children school lunches or take away health care or restrict welfare. Christianity is just a shield they hide behind to deflect ownership of their punitive beliefs.

 

[Draft]

Bad analogies and bad arguments go hand in hand.

You wouldn't download a pig, would you?

 

[Aristion]

You understand there have been cases where conjoined twins have one die due to the inability for a single body to properly care and host twins, right?

Which one has veto power?

Do you really not see the difference between a woman getting rid of something that, for the vast majority of the times when a woman has an abortion, literally CANNOT LIVE OUTSIDE OF HER UTERUS vs what you just said?

Think of a case where siamese twins could not survive if we were to separate them.

 

[Princess Viola]

Bad analogies and bad arguments go hand in hand.

You wouldn't download a pig, would you?

Yes I would.

 

[Clerical Error]

I need you to defend the view that a woman's choice overrides the innocence of a human life. That's a moral proposition that seems self-evidently false, so I'll need you to provide an argument to defend it.

What seems self-evidently false to you obviously does not seem that way to others, so perhaps it is not as self-evident as you believe.

Why is human life the dispositive moral issue rather than personhood?

 

[Goodstyle]

Elections have consequences. Millennials who stayed home... this one's for you.

 

[SliceSabre]

Don't want abortions but don't want to have safety nets for people.

Let's outlaw abortion! They can give it up for adoption if they don't want the kid. Oh also we're cutting job and family services, social safety nets too and school funding along with after school programs! You know all those things that unwanted kid would need!

 

[notsol337]

maybe Aristion's next step is to have her and the uncle marry

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I also do not think he is going to respond to me.

I don't blame him, because it doesn't fit the view that this is a black and white issue.

*edit* Also, while I disagree with Aristion I appreciate that he's being level-headed and logical in his approach. I guess what I posted is kind of terrible from a logical standpoint.

I'm going to bow out.

 

[Blader]

see this is just troll bait looking to get a pro-lifer to argue, come on dude.

Unless pro-lifers are willing to advocate for widespread sex education and birth control access, then how else should it be interpreted? Because otherwise, the pro-life position boils down to a woman not being given the choice to govern her own body precisely because she had sex that resulted in a pregnancy.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Which one has veto power?



Think of a case where siamese twins could not survive if we were to separate them.

Neither of them, because they are fucking infants who have medical surgeons tell the parents the odds of survive for both during separation.

Of course, this has nothing to do with abortion, you're just circling the wagon and flinging shit to the walls to see what sticks.

 

[chillybright]

God abortion debates on here are the worst. You have the one or two pro-lifers saying fetus is a life, getting dogpiled by the majority saying it is about the "woman's body". Neither of you guys are gonna convince the other side and it's the same exact argument every single time it comes out with both sides claiming the moral high ground.

It is a highly divisive issue with the country evenly split on it, but neither side is convincing the other and literally turns into the circular argument that gets no one anywhere.
see this is just troll bait looking to get a pro-lifer to argue, come on dude.

This.

The crux is whether you consider a fetus a living person who has rights. And neither party is going to convince the other.

So yeah if you want your ideology become law, start voting. Any other effort is futile.

 

[Maxim726X]

That's an unfair way to categorize these people. Christians are concerned with helping people; conservatives just want to control people. That's a huge difference. No one with strong religious beliefs would deny children school lunches or take away health care or restrict welfare. Christianity is just a shield they hide behind to deflect ownership of their punitive beliefs.

Then it's actually the perfect way to categorize them- Christian conservative.

i.e.- Using Christianity as a means for justifying intolerant, backwards beliefs that conservatives champion.

 

[Not]

We're not changing their minds, we're not changing ours.

Since at least one person in this thread on the other side of the issue is trying to have a logical debate, I'm invested. I appreciate you, Aristion.

Here's my opinion:

Most of the information the right has presumedly integrated into their assessment of Planned Parenthood as an organization was devised by powerful people with very narrow interests—plutocrats, would-be oligarchs, and the like—in order to maintain the unlikely support of people whom their own fiscally conservative policies would never benefit. Ergo, they don’t just seek out economic traditionalists, but those who believe in preserving the societal superiority of one race and sex over the other. This is a strategy that has rewarded them handsomely, as it manipulates the moral compass of these traditionalists until they become irrationally invested in a system of government that has been definitively shown to make their lives worse.

One of the components of this strategy is to cut “nonessential” programs, such as the ones that primarily aid women, because a great deal of the people they’re courting, both male and female, have been raised to believe that women are second-class citizens that should submit to the will and knowledge of men.

The data shows that the people belonging to this group, largely inhabiting poor and/or rural areas and suffering from inadequate education systems, are less likely than the people in all other groups to possess critical thinking skills, second guess their own opinions, or even study the research that supports or does not support their way of thinking. It is consequently very easy to mislead these masses through fear tactics, falsehoods, insincere pandering, demonization of opposing viewpoints or information sources that contradict deep-rooted ideas, the promotion of “whiteness” as a trait that places even the lowest of society in a caste over “nonwhites,” and attempted restrictions of the actual will of the majority through voter subjugation laws and gerrymandering.

Indeed, it is a simple matter to persuade this group that fiscal conservatives are the “good guys,” the ones that will stop at nothing to protect and serve their constituents’ lifestyles, when in reality they only take advantage of these people in order to acquire and retain personal wealth without any responsibility.

So, when verifiable statistics (such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8305217.stm) support the notion that “liberal” policies, or those that actually benefit the largest number of people, regardless of class, actually lower the abortion rate more than conservative tenets due to the smaller number of unwanted pregnancies among women who no longer feel like a prisoner of their own biological certainties, the elite controlling class must tell their followers that all sex is unnatural without the government’s awareness and regulation, i.e., marriage, that any form of contraception whatsoever denotes promiscuity, and that “unwanted pregnancy” is nothing but an oxymoron.

They spread myths and propaganda about the nature of modern abortion practices until it becomes quite literally a matter of life and death for many. They shrewdly impede any possible debate to be had by either oversimplifying the complex philosophy and nature of human life during the first trimester before birth, or by causing the conversation around women’s rights in general to be irreversibly mired by its ties to a largely irresolvable and heated issue. The moral intricacies around men’s rights, such as the historical normalization of their comparatively broader propensity for unmerited violence and aggression, mental illness, and sexual assault, receive no such attention. I stand by the conjecture that if men gave birth, abortions would have long ago been legal and justified as a last resort, much like war, environmental destruction, and in some countries, honor killings, are. Men have final say.

The conservative elite reiterate the importance of “normal,” “traditional,” or “family” values, knowing very well that policies that give women equal rights have no place among them. They recognize that laws that give women any power whatsoever are still deemed “progressive,” a buzzword they have taught their supporters to bristle at.

These traditional values also tend to have their basis in religion, and in this country specifically, Puritanism. While I have always believed that the Bible is important to humanity’s advancement, and overall a source of good in the world, I also believe that countless opportunists have selectively perverted its diverse teachings via their own closed perspectives and selfish inclinations as a means of swaying the otherwise good-natured among us into unwittingly helping to fulfill their machinations of perpetuating iniquity.

 

[norm9]

There should way more abortions. Too many people thinking having kids will save their marriage and the kids suffer because of it.

 

[jfkgoblue]

Unless pro-lifers are willing to advocate for widespread sex education and birth control access, then how else should it be interpreted? Because otherwise, the pro-life position boils down to a woman not being given the choice to govern her own body precisely because she had sex that resulted in a pregnancy.

You are not gonna rope me into this argument, God dammit.

I understand the argument for both sides and I know many pro-lifers and it really is 100% about killing what they believe to be children and that is all I will say on the subject.

 

[Maxim726X]

Since at least one person in this thread on the other side of the issue is trying to have a logical debate, I'm invested. I appreciate you, Aristion.

Here's my opinion:

Most of the information the right has presumedly integrated into their assessment of Planned Parenthood as an organization was devised by powerful people with very narrow interests—plutocrats, would-be oligarchs, and the like—in order to maintain the unlikely support of people whom their own fiscally conservative policies would never benefit. Ergo, they don’t just seek out economic traditionalists, but those who believe in preserving the societal superiority of one race and sex over the other. This is a strategy that has rewarded them handsomely, as it manipulates the moral compass of these traditionalists until they become irrationally invested in a system of government that has been definitively shown to make their lives worse.

One of the components of this strategy is to cut “nonessential” programs, such as the ones that primarily aid women, because a great deal of the people they’re courting, both male and female, have been raised to believe that women are second-class citizens that should submit to the will and knowledge of men.

The data shows that the people belonging to this group, largely inhabiting poor and/or rural areas and suffering from inadequate education systems, are less likely than the people in all other groups to possess critical thinking skills, second guess their own opinions, or even study the research that supports or does not support their way of thinking. It is consequently very easy to mislead these masses through fear tactics, falsehoods, insincere pandering, demonization of opposing viewpoints or information sources that contradict deep-rooted ideas, the promotion of “whiteness” as a trait that places even the lowest of society in a caste over “nonwhites,” and attempted restrictions of the actual will of the majority through voter subjugation laws and gerrymandering.

Indeed, it is a simple matter to persuade this group that fiscal conservatives are the “good guys,” the ones that will stop at nothing to protect and serve their constituents’ lifestyles, when in reality they only take advantage of these people in order to acquire and retain personal wealth without any responsibility.

So, when verifiable statistics (such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8305217.stm) support the notion that “liberal” policies, or those that actually benefit the largest number of people, regardless of class, actually lower the abortion rate more than conservative tenets due to the smaller number of unwanted pregnancies among women who no longer feel like a prisoner of their own biological certainties, the elite controlling class must tell their followers that all sex is unnatural without the government’s awareness and regulation, i.e., marriage, that any form of contraception whatsoever denotes promiscuity, and that “unwanted pregnancy” is nothing but an oxymoron.

They spread myths and propaganda about the nature of modern abortion practices until it becomes quite literally a matter of life and death for many. They shrewdly impede any possible debate to be had by either oversimplifying the complex philosophy and nature of human life during the first trimester before birth, or by causing the conversation around women’s rights in general to be irreversibly mired by its ties to a largely irresolvable and heated issue. The moral intricacies around men’s rights, such as the historical normalization of their comparatively broader propensity for unmerited violence and aggression, mental illness, and sexual assault, receive no such attention. I stand by the conjecture that if men gave birth, abortions would have long ago been legal and justified as a last resort, much like war, environmental destruction, and in some countries, honor killings, are. Men have final say.

The conservative elite reiterate the importance of “normal,” “traditional,” or “family” values, knowing very well that policies that give women equal rights have no place among them. They recognize that laws that give women any power whatsoever are still deemed “progressive,” a buzzword they have taught their supporters to bristle at.

These traditional values also tend to have their basis in religion, and in this country specifically, Puritanism. While I have always believed that the Bible is important to humanity’s advancement, and overall a source of good in the world, I also believe that countless opportunists have selectively perverted its diverse teachings via their own closed perspectives and selfish inclinations as a means of swaying the otherwise good-natured among us into unwittingly helping to fulfill their machinations of perpetuating iniquity.

The issue, in my opinion, is that people are trying to logically dismantle the argument against abortion to those who believe it should be abolished- And you can't.

This is an issue that transcends logic and reason. You can't convince someone about when 'life' begins, just as much as someone can convince you that they know for certain. It's too emotionally invested. It's an argument that will never go anywhere.

 

[Aristion]

Yes, because we value consciousness on upper-limits as well as current limits and not just "oh, it's a dumb baby, who gives a fuck". We value human life over other animals because WE ARE HUMAN. Not that hard to wrap your head around. If you want to talk about why we eat meat and kill things, I don't think an abortion thread is a place for that.

That's not really why we value the life of an infant. We value infants because they possess capacities that pigs don't. The former are capable of being rational individuals with the ability to be self-conscious, reflect, and possess moral agency. We value other humans not simply because they have our DNA and look like us, but because we participate in the same moral community.

You still haven't answered my question, when does life start?

You can't expect me to answer your questions immediately when it's obvious that I'm responding to a whole host of people, give me a moment.

Life starts at conception. You'll likely find that absurd, but you'll have to find an alternative account of when a human becomes a person with moral value, and that account is not forthcoming.

 

[Ganhyun]

And this is the part where these arguments start going around in circles.

We're not changing their minds, we're not changing ours.

Win some fucking elections, please. Then perhaps we can weed out the Christian conservative right.

As A Christian, fiscally-conservative, white guy, I believe its not my place to say if a woman gets an abortion or not. I would say that my moral view is that its wrong in many cases, but I was also raised to judge not lest ye be judged. And frankly, its not my business what someone else does with their body.

I'll admit I used to think alot differently, but time and research changed my position on the subject.

 

[Downhome]

I'm pro-life, big shock I know. I think I leaned even that much more in that direction after we heard the heartbeat of our first child (that eventually ended in a miscarriage) at just week 7.

I do, however, support exceptions in extreme cases such as the life of the mother, rape, and incest.

This is one topic that's almost impossible to debate online. You just go around in circles forever no matter which side you are on.

 

[Nepenthe]

Let's not act like this is about a right to life. It's about a right to merely be born. Conservatives pushing this are more likely to be the ones privatizing the access to one's ability to sustain needs, criminalizing those who would do things such as feed the poor outside of specific institutions, and of course advocating the death penalty and turning a blind eye to fatal police abuses. These people do not care. It's about controlling women over an issue that wasn't even an wedge issue until Southern Strategy nutjobs made it one in the 70s.

Also, what does this have to do with jobs? About to create an illegal black alley market.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

That's not really why we value the life of an infant. We value infants because they possess capacities that pigs don't. The former are capable of being rational individuals with the ability to be self-conscious, reflect, and possess moral agency. We value other humans not simply because they have our DNA and look like us, but because we participate in the same moral community.



You can't expect me to answer your questions immediately when it's obvious that I'm responding to a whole host of people, give me a moment.

Life starts at conception. You'll likely find that absurd, but you'll have to find an alternative account of when a human becomes a person with moral value, and that account is not forthcoming.

So if life starts at conception, what happens to over half of the conceptions that end in miscarriages.

Are those deaths of a child, and by your definition, should be mourned as such?

 

[LegendofJoe]

I'll middle ground with the pro-lifers. Force women to give birth to unwanted children, but then the government takes the now tax-money mooching child and trains them to be soldiers. It streamlines the military recruitment process, thins out the undesirables, and wars can be fought without negative consequence of america's wanted children being blown up.

When are you running as a Republican for political office?

 

[Derwind]

I don't think this is good enough, can we ban Male masturbation? I too want to draw the line in the sand for where life begins. I like invasive measures entirely rooted in religion and callously deem those that try to make a decision involving their own bodies as criminal.

 

[Aristion]

Neither of them, because they are fucking infants who have medical surgeons tell the parents the odds of survive for both during separation.

Of course, this has nothing to do with abortion, you're just circling the wagon and flinging shit to the walls to see what sticks.

No, I'm talking about adult siamese twins, one of which is sick of having her bodily autonomy violated by her sister.

The example is relevant because we're talking about bodily autonomy, after all.

 

[Blader]

You are not gonna rope me into this argument, God dammit.

I understand the argument for both sides and I know many pro-lifers and it really is 100% about killing what they believe to be children and that is all I will say on the subject.

If you want there to be fewer abortions, you need to make it easier to reduce the potential for pregnancy. Banning abortion won't do it; promoting birth control and sex education will. I don't care if you don't want to get roped into the argument or not, and really, the fact that you don't want to talk about it suggests to me you're uncomfortable (to put it generously) with a platform that at all promotes women having sex. Which does go back to the point of punishing women for having sex in the first place.

 

[Pyramid head]

'Pro-life' is as much of a misnomer as 'alt-right'. 'Anti-womens rights' is much closer to the truth. Funny how quickly 'pro-life' turns to 'fuck you' as soon as that fetus pops out of the mothers vagina. Especially if said fetus turns out to be female.

You're never, ever, ever stopping abortions from taking place. That's not something any of these dogshit laws being passed by dogshit people will ever achieve. The choice being made is 'whether to make women needlessly suffer or not'. That's all.