VanillaCakeIsBurning
Member
If men could get pregnant, the end result would be widespread approval for them. Telling a man that he has to carry one in him for 9 months against his own will would most definitely end in violence.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ohio 'heartbeat' bill banning most abortions passes legislature, on Governor's desk
- Thread starter ultron87
- Start date
- Status
If men could get pregnant, the end result would be widespread approval for them. Telling a man that he has to carry one in him for 9 months against his own will would most definitely end in violence.
Got to have guns everywhere though, right?
Vincent Alexander
Member
I think you're exactly right. This is probably one of the most difficult issues to discuss because at it's foundation you have to agree on the definition of what is or isn't life. And that by itself is a whole other argument. And I have seen some vicious ass jabs on both sides. Makes it hard to discuss when you're potentially jumping into a land mine. I will say though, I am thoroughly impressed with this thread. Maybe I'm crazy, but this seems like one of the most civil threads we've had discussing abortion.
killer rin
Member
Depends, does it make it to the Supreme Court before, or after Trump stacks the deck with Republicans?
It's always weird to me that so much of the debate relies on when to consider the thing a full person. Seems like drawing an arbitrary line to make people feel better (or worse) about the idea of abortion.
I can definitely see a zygote or whatever as a person, because it eventually does become one at some arbitrary point, but I'm still perfectly fine with abortion.
I can definitely see a zygote or whatever as a person, because it eventually does become one at some arbitrary point, but I'm still perfectly fine with abortion.
I can accept the idea that a foetus has value, as a potential human life, but I don't think that should result in a hardline rejection of all abortion. The moral harm of terminating unintelligent life is significantly lower than the harm of bringing an unwanted child into the world.
Eye for an Eye
Member
There's so many flaws to an anti-choice arguement. They like to believe that every pregnancy is a happy and joyous nine months of a woman's life without a substantial amount of risk. The US has the highest mortality rate for pregnant women than any other developed nation. The chance of complications from an abortion is so substantially smaller, and the risk of death is half a percent.
These abortion bans that cap at 20 weeks place undo burden on women when there are fetal anomalies or risks to continuing a pregnancy.
It targets low income and minorities because if you're rich enough and white enough you can get anything you want behind closed doors. Low income women don't have the means to travel to far off locations and possibily spend the night in a hotel to obtain an abortion. Low income women are less likely to have access to regular OB care or emegency rooms able to handle complications. These laws are going to force Dr's to choose the life of the fetus over the life of the mother.
There's a reason why privacy laws exist between dr's and patients, but somehow abortions get to be everyone else's opinion except the woman and her dr.
Here's some stories for all you antichoice people. These are the stories why women need safe access to abortion care.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/04/01/texas-stillbirth-account-2/
http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/Stories/Stories.aspx
http://www.thanksabortion.com/#category/stories/5
These abortion bans that cap at 20 weeks place undo burden on women when there are fetal anomalies or risks to continuing a pregnancy.
It targets low income and minorities because if you're rich enough and white enough you can get anything you want behind closed doors. Low income women don't have the means to travel to far off locations and possibily spend the night in a hotel to obtain an abortion. Low income women are less likely to have access to regular OB care or emegency rooms able to handle complications. These laws are going to force Dr's to choose the life of the fetus over the life of the mother.
There's a reason why privacy laws exist between dr's and patients, but somehow abortions get to be everyone else's opinion except the woman and her dr.
Here's some stories for all you antichoice people. These are the stories why women need safe access to abortion care.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/04/01/texas-stillbirth-account-2/
http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/Stories/Stories.aspx
http://www.thanksabortion.com/#category/stories/5
This is so true. I think a lot of people don't realize how truly difficult pregnancy and labor can be. I just recently had a baby this summer and the experience absolutely reaffirmed my pro-choice stance. I cannot stress enough, how much I love my son. He was completely planned and absolutely wanted, but being pregnant and giving birth was harder than anything I've ever done. I honestly can't imagine getting through it, if I hadn't planned it and wanted my child.
muleyman13
Member
The only response to this I can add is, me and my wife lost our first pregnancy, we absolutely mourn the miscarriage. That was 17 years ago and neither my wife or I can ever think about it or discuss it as it is a emotional weight we have to carry. She cries every year on the date and I do what I can to help her. Every person has a different outlook on Abortion and "Life", it will not be agreed upon ever as far as I know. I only wanted to post our subjective view as maybe it will let people see the issue is as complex as one can be and maybe bring some levity to the idea that unborn children as something more to some than "a clump of cells". I mean no intent to harm or offend anyone just wanted that to be clear.
A considerable amount of miscarriages happen before the pregnancy is even known and often just manifest like a heavy period would.
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
I understand the emotions behind this. Without context, its hard to see if you guys fall into what the person above just posted, which I would like to reinforce, is incredibly common.
Big Baybee
Member
If you are against abortion, ok, but you have no right to force your beliefs on other people. Live your life as you see fit. Others will do the same.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Eh. What did Jesus say about slavery? Or rape?
You are right, of course, that Biblical arguments are horseshit to begin with.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Okay, so, that seems theoretically plausible--you pass a law banning X, the moral condemnation of X leads to less X. But is it true, or are there counterexamples from our past experience? What factors do you think drive whether laws / moral condemnaton work to curb a behaviour? Are some things easier to legislate than others? You seem willing to give this thought, but your initial structural functionalist claim is shallow.
Its nice to see that along with this they are increasing funding to the adoption system, trauma support and therapy for rape victims and support for struggling parents.
Oh wait.
If this was how the world worked there would literally never be any law changes ever. Hell, this conversation wouldn't be happening because everyone should have learned that abortions are morally okay by now.
Oh wait.
If this was how the world worked there would literally never be any law changes ever. Hell, this conversation wouldn't be happening because everyone should have learned that abortions are morally okay by now.
Haha no.
Your moral compass is not the guide to the law governing people's rights. Moral status is a meaningless term.
I am personally firmly against abortion and think that there's many avenues that can be explored before this. However from a legal view I support the right of the mother to choose, even if I personally do not agree. Trying to change views via the law is folly. The law changes because of, not despite of public sympathies.
Well, we have actual statistics that prove more access to contraceptives reduces abortions, and restrictions on abortions actually increase them. Thing is, the factions that tend to be anti-abortion, such as the Catholic Church, also tend to be anti-any-form-of-contraception at all, leaving abortion as your only last resort option.
excelsiorlef
Member
And that's why no one drinks alcohol anymore because prohibition was such a success.... oh wait...
That's absolutely understandable, and stories like this actually reinforce me being pro-choice. I think the people in the direct situation should decide for themselves how they feel about it. Well, not decide, but I mean their feelings are perfectly valid no matter what those feelings are about their own individual situation. I think were I ever in a situation like yours I would probably mourn, too. It's natural for some. But as someone else pointed out a lot of miscarriages aren't even known, and that can be different, too. The thing is that no two circumstances are ever the same. No two connections are the same. Some might lack some of that connection, and some might feel it so passionately it just breaks them down completely if something like that happens.
I do think we liberals and pro-choice definitely do rely on the "clump of cells" argument a little much and it can definitely feel like we're not thinking of situations like yours. It's the wrong way to go about it because it pushes away some. I think there are more ways into the argument that are more empathetic rather than de-humanizing.
Subpar Scrub
Banned
Absolutely terrible. The mother's right to control her own body should always come first.
The idea that dead people can have more control over their bodies than pregnant women is disgraceful. No doubt a lack of information provided to young people regarding sex education will only increase the amount of pregnancies too. Pregnancies that will have to be carried to term or terminated in a potentially dangerous way.
This contributes literally nothing. You would think after the Trump win, people would learn that you can't change other people's opinions by attacking them and not discussing it.
If by "anti-choice asshole" you mean Aristion, he's been arguing his points in a totally reasonable manner, though I disagree with him, and has definitely contributed more to the discussion than this worthless post.
Point me to the person who, before this story came out, looked to the USA and thought "the land of access to abortions".
The idea that dead people can have more control over their bodies than pregnant women is disgraceful. No doubt a lack of information provided to young people regarding sex education will only increase the amount of pregnancies too. Pregnancies that will have to be carried to term or terminated in a potentially dangerous way.
This contributes literally nothing. You would think after the Trump win, people would learn that you can't change other people's opinions by attacking them and not discussing it.
If by "anti-choice asshole" you mean Aristion, he's been arguing his points in a totally reasonable manner, though I disagree with him, and has definitely contributed more to the discussion than this worthless post.
Point me to the person who, before this story came out, looked to the USA and thought "the land of access to abortions".
Pantaghana
Member
You know what leads to less abortions? Sex education and access to contraception. Also the things the pro-life movement doesn't want people to have.
You know what makes abortions more dangerous but doesn't prevent them from happening? Making them illegal.
To clear up something: nobody likes or wants abortions, getting an abortion is already one of the most difficult and traumatizing events in a woman's life, to suggest otherwise is absurd.
But having the option is absolutely necessary for various medical, social and economic reasons.
You mean the entire rust belt, most of the Midwest, most of the south...
I expect my state of PA to embrace a far right loon for Gov in 2018 as well
lightskintwin
Banned
The same Republicans that are against abortion and want women to have babies all the time no matter the circumstances are the same Republicans that want to limit or outright cut welfare and social programs.
I don't understand how you can be for both.
I don't understand how you can be for both.
Vincent Grayson
Member
Moral and ethical inconsistency.
Airola
Member
I think if it the link between the mother's smoking and drinking and the child's health problems can be proven, the mother should be sanctioned in some way. Giving jail time for that would be absurd, so that's not an option. But perhaps a fine or lowering the welfare (of course, not taking her out from the whole welfare system as that would be absurd too) to discourage mothers from doing such things while being pregnant would be ok.
There are currently talks about what the society should do in cases like this. It's an ongoing debate. Currently it seems that the society is doing something for it by for example forbidding use of certain pharmaceutical drugs if the woman is pregnant. And it also seems that citizens are helping on that too by spreading awareness of the dangers of drug and alcohol use while pregnant. At least here in Finland it's pretty much guaranteed that if a pregnant woman is seen smoking or being drunk, there is someone around who'll go and tell the woman that's not ok. That type of behaviour is generally quite frowned upon in today's society (or at least in Finland).
And I think shops should be able to refuse to sell cigarettes or alcohol to pregnant women just like they can do to people who can't prove their age.
What comes to hard drug use, if the woman is pregnant while using those drugs, she should receive harder sanction if found quilty to using those drugs. And I'm for forced rehabilitation at that point. That thing needs to stop immediately. It needs to stop even without the baby but with the baby it's twice more important.
But isn't the real problem in those cases that the woman is for some reason afraid of having a baby?
Sometimes the society is against certain people having children. Sometimes the society is ok if it's a boy but not ok if it's a girl. Sometimes the mother and/or the father is afraid of the work needed to do to raise a child. Sometimes the mother and/or the father is afraid of the social change in their lives. Sometimes the mother is afraid of the physical and emotional pain the pregnancy brings. Sometimes the father pressures the mother to lose the baby and because the mother is afraid of what the father would do (maybe physical violence or just afraid that the father would leave her), she goes for the abortion. Sometimes the mother's parents are afraid the child would bring shame to the family. Sometimes the mother's parents are afraid the child eventually drains the family's money.
I'd say if someone is willing to go for that awful rope trick or any other shady practice to avoid giving birth to a child, the problem lies somewhere way deeper than in abortion acceptance.
Yeah, I even know a person who had tons of regrets from only using a morning-after pill. Now, personally I think that's perhaps going a bit overboard and maybe overreacting. I mean, the conception probably never even happened! But then again who am I to say her feelings were absurd if that's how she really felt. She coped with it by drawing a nice picture of a tombstone where she wrote a name she thought would've been nice for the baby.
These things sound absurd but it happens. One could say this person definitely had some mental issues, but I think we as humans have procreation so deeply ingrained in our dna that this is an issue that is far from simple. It's psychologically an extremely complicated thing.
relevant pic
Here in Argentina the chosen 'secular' argument is to say that we need more people because of our low population density. Just state mares for them alright.
psychowave
Member
I hope conservatives realize that banning abortions does exactly the opposite of saving lives, since it just encourages women to have them through unsafe and illegal methods. But of course conservatives have never cared about women's lives.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Free Contraception Can't End the Abortion Debate
Damon (Linker), and many others who participated in that Facebook thread (about abortion), voiced the belief that America has far more abortions than it otherwise would because conservatives are not doing enough to give women better access to contraception. This belief seems intuitive -- after all, birth control keeps you from getting pregnant, and it's hard to get an abortion if you're not pregnant. But when I look at the data, I am reminded of Ambrose Bierce's definition of prejudice: a vagrant opinion without visible means of support.
Consider abortion rates in various developed nations:
The U.S. rate is certainly high compared with, say Germany or the Netherlands. On the other hand, it's lower than Sweden, and right around that of New Zealand and the UK -- countries with comprehensive national health-care services that provide birth control. And who had one of the lowest abortion rates? Ireland, where it was illegal. (Irish women travel abroad to get abortions, but the rate still seems to be quite low by international standards.)
Now, obviously, we could theoretically do something to reduce our abortion rates to more German levels without going so far as to ban it. But this data doesn't really suggest that "something" is necessarily "provide more affordable reproductive health care services to women," or indeed, anything else that lends itself to government intervention, such as "better sex ed." Extremely high abortion rates can coexist with extremely comprehensive health-care systems and liberal social norms.
You see a similar pattern in the U.S. when you look at the variation in abortion rates between states: Liberal blue states with liberal abortion laws and liberal attitudes about birth control seem to have the highest, not the lowest, rates of abortion. What drives this? I can come up with a number of plausible theories, but I couldn't tell you which one is right. On the other hand, I think we can reject the hypothesis that liberal attitudes toward sex and birth control are a surefire way to get the abortion rate down.
In fact, the evidence for this thesis was never very good. Even William Saletan, who used to be a leading advocate of the squishy pro-choicer thesis that abortion is terrible so we need to give people lots of free birth control, ended up abandoning this thesis when he concluded that there's just not good data showing that the high price of birth control, or the inability to get your hands on the stuff, is the major reason people end up having abortions.
(much more at the link, worth a read)
Too add to this thread and away from the pro-life vs pro-choice debate.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-public-views-ohios-abortion-bill/
Abortion is the most divisive issue in this country, and you can't say that it's only conservatives that hate it as well. This isn't going against the will of the people, they voted their people in, many just for the more abortion restrictions. Abortion has not experienced the same acceptance as other progressive causes such as gay rights. There will be a huge liberal uproar if Roe v. Wade is overturned, but they will be the only ones participating, most of the country will either celebrate it or not care all that much.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-public-views-ohios-abortion-bill/
Fivethirtyeight said:
Abortion is the most divisive issue in this country, and you can't say that it's only conservatives that hate it as well. This isn't going against the will of the people, they voted their people in, many just for the more abortion restrictions. Abortion has not experienced the same acceptance as other progressive causes such as gay rights. There will be a huge liberal uproar if Roe v. Wade is overturned, but they will be the only ones participating, most of the country will either celebrate it or not care all that much.
The loss of access to abortion will result in one of two things or, most likely, a combination of both: More women will die from botched abortion attempts and the women who see their pregnancies through will find themselves trapped in poverty - less able to finish school and less able to further their careers. The men who father these children will continue to have the option to walk away, while the women who are forced to carry to term will likely develop some emotional attachment, keep the child, and then financially struggle for the rest of their lives.
Also, although unlikely, as Eye for an Eye mentioned above, it would be real great if this country could start focusing on our high maternal mortality rate, if they're going to start forcing women to carry all pregnancies to term. Especially since, with more pregnancies going to term, it seems like the amount of women dying from childbirth will increase too. In fact, given that it will mostly be poor women who are forced to carry to term, a group without access to prenatal care, it seems guaranteed that the maternal mortality rate will increase.
Also, although unlikely, as Eye for an Eye mentioned above, it would be real great if this country could start focusing on our high maternal mortality rate, if they're going to start forcing women to carry all pregnancies to term. Especially since, with more pregnancies going to term, it seems like the amount of women dying from childbirth will increase too. In fact, given that it will mostly be poor women who are forced to carry to term, a group without access to prenatal care, it seems guaranteed that the maternal mortality rate will increase.
I mean this will maybe speak to "pro choicers" who still make it clear every step of way how they personally feel about it but for anyone who doesn't agree with straight up "more abortions = bad" I'm not sure what I'm supposed to see here. Unless there is a graph somewhere that explicitly says that the abortions represented here were all the abortions that were desired, it's pretty irrelevant to me.
I need to read more, but this would seem to run counter to the drop in the abortion rate Colorado saw when they experimented with free birth control: http://www.businessinsider.com/colo...e-birth-control-reduces-teen-pregnancy-2015-7
Pantaghana
Member
I never mentioned contraception being free, merely being available. And yes, there have been attempts at outlawing some contraception methods.
Having read through that and several related articles, seems the issue is that, despite easy access to birth control, people simply don't use it. I can't even guess why that is.
For women, it's likely fear of side effects. For men, they simply don't like the way condoms feel.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
You aren't going to end it, you are going to make it more barbaric and criminal.
I'm just curious how people who are 'pro-life' think this is going to work. You get rid of abortion, what are you going to do to a woman who has a back alley abortion or some other method of terminating their pregnancy. Honestly, have you thought about the logistics?
You realize it is going to be low-income people who are going to feel the brunt of this? Who is going to pay for a mother's medical bills leading up to the pregnancy, including birth. Are you going to mandate that they make sure to eat healthy, not drink, etc. in order to ensure the child is born healthy. You guys haven't even thought about this have you?
Vicetrailia
Member
BC pills are a necessary evil.
InfiniteBento
Member
As a woman, who at the age of 15 had an abortion after being with an abusive alcoholic and only managed to do so because i went to court alone and struggled for weeks to find a free lawyer to represent me in my case, fuck you.
Having an abortion saved my life and my future. To say its a barbaric practice, you clearly do not understand the trauma women go through in our daily lives and sacrifices we must make for our health and our futures.
Let me see you carry around a cluster of cells to full form for 9 months that a man decided to put inside you by raping you then talk shit.
Coriolanus
Banned
Ysee, the problem is that you've then reduced the woman to an uterus. When you impose sanctions on that behaviour, the state is, quite simply, saying that the fetus > the carrier. If one is willing to force rehabilitation on someone for that, the state is not only saying that the contents of the uterus matter more than the person, but also that the person's body belongs not to the person, but to the state. At that point, one might as well criminalize suicide.
Additionally, you, oddly, exempted binge eating from the list of harmful conducts, even though it is just as devastating as all the other practices, if not even more so, given the extent of the effects. Thus, if one wishes to protect the fetus, one would have to regulate what pregnant women eat. Would one be willing to do that? If not, why? It is just as harmful as drinking, smoking or using drugs. If yes, fair enough, but then.... i`ll just ask if women should be allowed inside a car while pregnant, then, given that one is aware of the increased risk that it offers to the fetus. Or if they should be allowed to bungee-jump. Or skydive. Or swim. Or any activity that is riskier than staying at home in bed, after all, all of those things increase the risk of harm to the fetus, so what should be the cutoff point?
I, for one, would love to see a world where people refuse to sell an ice cream sandwich to a pregnant person.
Mr Waluigi
Banned
I'm very pro-life (or anti-choice, whatever you like) but isn't it too hasty to totally and suddenly make legal abortion impossible without making sure that abortion becomes the least favorable option first? Otherwise it may reduce the legal abortion rate, but it'll definitely boost the illegal, unsafe abortion rate.
And to me, it sounds like the best path to make abortion the least favorable option would be to educate people on the immorality of abortion, while making sure there is a very good infrastructure to take in and raise unwanted children, and give emotional and financial support to women who would otherwise have had an abortion. And until then, make abortion legal, safe and easy to access to make sure there is a peaceful transition that benefits common people the most.
Either way I hope it never turns out like it did in my country, where no one but deeply religious people thinks there is anything wrong with abortion... It has become all about the carrier of the child's rights, while the child itself is not even considered a child but rather a piece of flesh belonging to the mother. It's horrifying.
And to me, it sounds like the best path to make abortion the least favorable option would be to educate people on the immorality of abortion, while making sure there is a very good infrastructure to take in and raise unwanted children, and give emotional and financial support to women who would otherwise have had an abortion. And until then, make abortion legal, safe and easy to access to make sure there is a peaceful transition that benefits common people the most.
Either way I hope it never turns out like it did in my country, where no one but deeply religious people thinks there is anything wrong with abortion... It has become all about the carrier of the child's rights, while the child itself is not even considered a child but rather a piece of flesh belonging to the mother. It's horrifying.
Pantaghana
Member
I could take the bolded statement and turn it into "It has all become about the child's rights, while the mother is not even considered a human being, rather a uterus belonging to the state. It's horrifying."
In the battle of rights between women and unborn, someone will be screwed over, it's simple as that.
Personally I side with people that currently are, not those that might be.
what the fuck is wrong with you? jesus anti-choicers are absolute sociopaths
there is nothing immoral about abortion.
Interesting in how there's no education funding on the dangers of pregnancy. I view it as immoral to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term where it's 100% her body and life on the line while men have no other contribution than the initial fertilization. I'm not saying men are just sperm donors.. but we also absolutely do not have even the slightest tiniest bit of risk in a pregnancy whatsoever. A pregnancy for a woman can outright kill them, maim, and a whole host of other effects, including mental health issues even with modern medicine.. A man can soft-abort by taking the next bus out of town. Women can't do that. I cannot force them to stare down that barrel and tell them they have to go through with it.
Mr Waluigi
Banned
The mother's life isn't terminated without her having a say in it.
I am not knowledgeable on the subject. How is the woman treated like an uterus belonging to the state in countries in which abortion is illegal (Ireland for instance)?
Pregnancy can end in death, coma, or amputation from complications.
It's way more dangerous than you think it is. Like, way more.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked