Right to LifeBoard

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,2712,2722,2732,2742,2752,2762,277. . .2,5072,508»
LodgedFromMessages
The Theocracy of Aawia

I'm with Roborian on this one. If the child is a person why are we favouring the women's right to kill it over its right to live? There were horrors with the back-alley abortion industry, absolutely. But if we remove the desperate factors that drove women to those extremes and put in fluid safeguards that can adjust to radical circumstances, then I believe making abortion illegal is a moral duty. No doubt carrying a pregnancy to term, whether or not you intend to keep it, is beyond my imagining, but it is a risk that comes with being sexually active. No child was conceived out of thin air, even Mary was given a heads up.

I just can't justify allowing someone to murder someone else just because it could cause them harm. I'm sympathetic to women who, in today's circumstances, feel like it is truly their life or the babies, but I also truly believe society can rectify that and remove this as a justifiable line of thinking.

I simply cannot see why we should allow one human to legally take the life of another.

The Federation of Roborian

Horatius Cocles wrote:If making abortion totally illegal is the end-goal of the pro-life movement, then it ought to think about what will happen to the women seeking underground abortions. Those women will always exist, and we must take them into consideration if we claim to be "pro-life." Your argument leaves you wide open to the criticism that the pro-life movement doesn't value women beyond passing the child through the birth canal. As for not thinking about the hygiene or safety, as a woman it is easy for me to think about the trouble those women would go through. As a man, you'll never have to undergo any part of the pregnancy process, which is strenuous as it is without the thought of procuring an abortion. It may be the wrong decision, certainly, but is there need for the woman to die or suffer from hemorrhage or uterine perforation? The women who sought abortions pre-1973 all had to think about hygiene, safety, and pricing. For that matter, it should be thought about in modern day abortion "clinics." There is no reason to subject the abortion seeking woman to a quack doctor that can cause grievous bodily injury to the most delicate area of her body. And even if we could round up all the abortionists and throw them in jail, then women would simply do DIY abortions with even worse results. After a botched operation or even a "successful" abortion, women could end up with serious damage to the cervix due to utterly incompetent "doctors." And that's not even getting into the territory of abortion "doctors" that raped and abused the women in their "care." In an illegal abortion setting, there's no way to hold the abuser accountable for such hideous actions.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/back-alley-abortions_n_5065301

My ultimate calculation is that what may happen in cases of seeking to illegally kill the child, while not to be dismissed, while worthy of concern, is fundamentally secondary to the welfare of the victim set for execution.

I suppose I would put it this way, for a quote such as "There is no reason to subject the abortion seeking woman to a quack doctor that can cause grievous bodily injury to the most delicate area of her body." This is true-but also true is there far less reason to subject the child-who, unlike the mother knowingly taking the risk, absolutely did not consent-to any doctor that is seeking to tear their limbs off. In the former case, while peer pressure may exist, while there certain can be external influences in many cases, the person is a consenting adult in the overwhelming majority of cases who is choosing to subject themselves to the risk, is walking themselves voluntarily into the back-alley clinic. The child never gets a choice.

It's not good that cases of abuse or malpractice might or do exist for someone knowingly seeking illegal abortions, but I cannot see any moral equivalence between that and the active homicide being sought against the defenseless child. There is far more moral cause to dramatically reduce the latter, even if people intentionally and knowingly breaking the law and putting themselves at risk cause a statistically far smaller increase in the former. In a time when medical technology was dramatically worse and far more deaths occurred through the maternal process than today, the former number was in the hundreds, each tragic: https://www.liveaction.org/news/women-died-illegal-abortion-roe/. The latter number, again, of those who are not knowingly taking a risk in seeking to terminate a child, but are children with no choices or defense of their own, is in the hundreds of thousands. I wish badly that both numbers could be zero, that we did not live a fallen and corrupted world where the idea of killing one's child is accepted, but in this world in which we live, I would take saving the lives of hundreds of thousands over risks to hundreds knowingly taking them. There is a fundamental difference both in kind, and, massively so, in scale.

The Federation of Roborian

The Confederacy of Beastland wrote:It is not that I have a problem with most of his policies (I definitely disagree with some of them, but then again I definitely disagree with some of the policies of all politicians or people (the least amount of disagreeance being with my favorite ex-politician Ron Paul)). My older brother actually first told me about Ben Shapiro, telling me to listen to him. Ben Shapiro was apparently the person who turned him against the commie Bernie (which is good at least), when he went through his socialist phase (I have been a conservative-leaning libertarian since middle school). Me and my brother got in an argument over him, which is why I brought him up. But there is something about his personality that just annoys the hell out of me...he just comes off as very condescending/arrogant to me sometimes.

Certainly understandable. Shapiro has self-described (if jokingly) "my entire personality is basically focused but kind of smug", and I can very easily see how he could push someone's buttons-he's openly stated that he thinks his own voice is annoying. I think a fair amount of it is sort of playing the character/playing into the meme, but even without that, there is a level of self-assurance that can easily come off as arrogance (and probably is at least partially legitimate arrogance.)

I did not know about his take on Ron Paul before you brought it up, and I definitely disagree with him on it. I went to look at the specific clip in which he talks about Paul, and his take was more or less "I like his philosophy and libertarianism, but I think the guy himself is 'alt-right adjacent' for reasons of alleged anti-semitism", which I disagree with, I also think highly of Paul, though I suppose ideological agreement despite the personal disagreement is the better outcome if there has to be disagreement at all.

The Democratic Republic of Caterama

I JOIN THE SPACE RACE LOL

The Friendly Republic of New Dolgaria

Roborian wrote:I would take saving the lives of hundreds of thousands over risks to hundreds knowingly taking them. There is a fundamental difference both in kind, and, massively so, in scale.

But in the original dilemma, didn't you say that Scenario 1 resulted in less abortions overall?

The Social Democracy of Horatius Cocles

Meanwhile, Texas has just passed a restrictive voting bill, even though this is already the hardest state in the country to vote in. We have abysmally low turnout in this state as it is. Remember though, this is all for "election security" and "ballot integrity." The Texas Gop took Trump's baseless voter fraud allegations seriously and the fact that the state GOP is led by a Tea Party conservative doesn't bode well. Amid all the other pieces of legislation that could have been debated at Austin, this junk was chosen as our governor's highest priority. Not the “I am Vanessa Guillén Act” or the “George Floyd Act” got traction in Austin but this restrictive bill was passed no problem. Living in Harris County, a top target for state Republicans, we will now have to undo the very things that got us higher turnout in 2020. No more drive through voting, limited to no ballot boxes, crackdowns on mail in voting, etc. It’s a great way to ensure Republican dominance for another decade (did I mention they also control the redistricting process as well?)

The Social Democracy of Horatius Cocles

New Dolgaria wrote:But in the original dilemma, didn't you say that Scenario 1 resulted in less abortions overall?

I think he did. My answer for option 1 was both for my choice in the hypothetical and what I’d prefer to see in real life.

The Theocracy of Aawia

New Dolgaria wrote:But in the original dilemma, didn't you say that Scenario 1 resulted in less abortions overall?

I kind of assumed the conversation had moved to the practical, my bad :P

I do not think that scenario would happen IRL or with those numbers, but it is a fun thought experiment.

The Federation of Roborian

New Dolgaria wrote:But in the original dilemma, didn't you say that Scenario 1 resulted in less abortions overall?

Yes, as a hypothetical, I noted in the beginning of my response to Phydios the effectiveness in real-life, we did sort of end up getting blurred on which we were talking about.

Roborian wrote:Outside of the hypothetical, where the numbers were just concocted to create the dilemma, bans are going to be effective. Not perfectly effective: no law of any kind is perfectly effective, but a ban on abortion tomorrow would immediately reduce abortion rates more than decades of advocacy, just as, to return to the abolition example, the 13th Amendment did dramatically more to bring slavery to an end than decades of abolitionist rhetoric. The rhetoric is not useless, it is worthwhile, but outside of hypotheticals it will likely never do even a fraction as much as criminalization.

The Federation of Roborian

Horatius Cocles wrote:Meanwhile, Texas has just passed a restrictive voting bill, even though this is already the hardest state in the country to vote in. We have abysmally low turnout in this state as it is. Remember though, this is all for "election security" and "ballot integrity." The Texas Gop took Trump's baseless voter fraud allegations seriously and the fact that the state GOP is led by a Tea Party conservative doesn't bode well. Amid all the other pieces of legislation that could have been debated at Austin, this junk was chosen as our governor's highest priority. Not the “I am Vanessa Guillén Act” or the “George Floyd Act” got traction in Austin but this restrictive bill was passed no problem. Living in Harris County, a top target for state Republicans, we will now have to undo the very things that got us higher turnout in 2020. No more drive through voting, limited to no ballot boxes, crackdowns on mail in voting, etc. It’s a great way to ensure Republican dominance for another decade (did I mention they also control the redistricting process as well?)

I'm currently looking to find a relatively neutral summary of the bill beyond the text itself, which provisions do you have the biggest issues with? My take from some older articles (I do not know know all of the amendments made since) is that it seems a mix of bureaucratic provisions that are largely stupid and negative and that I would oppose, though are not very immensely transformative (such as changing precinct zoning), changes that seem reasonable (Give your driver's license or other ID number on your absentee ballot, no blindly sending out ballots unless specifically requested), and ones that are a mix (protecting poll watchers, but seemingly clumsily/overzealously-which appears to now have been fixed by amendment.)

I definitely think at least the mail-in changes are in order. I'm strongly of the mind that elections ought to take place on Election Day, and that mail-in or early voting should not exist outside of cases of need (disability, etc.) The inclusion of some other parts such as the precinct zoning in particular (assuming that is still part of the bill), however, seem to be pretty good evidence that there's some level of partisan and/or corrupt motivation behind some Republicans pushing the bill, unless there's an argument for such changes that I'm just not aware of.

The Federation of Roborian

Words and phrases included in practicing Catholic Joe Biden's National Day of Prayer Proclamation:

-"existential threat of climate change"

Words and phrases not included:

-"God"

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/05/05/a-proclamation-on-national-day-of-prayer/

Malant
The Federation of Roborian

Malant wrote:hello

'Ello.

Post self-deleted by Caterama.

Distril

I think a lot of voter laws passing in states will do little to stop actual election fraud. I think a lot of measures in states miss actual good reforms and instead kinda show off that they can pass these reforms because they can. I can understand Voter ID if IDs are universal and free but I don’t understand poll closures, extreme delays, and restrictions on how people can turn in their vote

The Republic of Phydios

The Confederacy of Beastland wrote:^And even those number are exxagerated. The way it works right now, if you die with covid it will go down as a covid death whether or not covid actually caused the death

But anyway, I really think Obama's wife is a man. Have you seen a woman (who hasnt admitted to being trans) which looks like her? It looks like she could beat Obama's ass. Online I was reading about it and some article said "People who believe that are just upset they can't get a woman HALF as beautiful". Yeah...No. She is probably the ugliest woman I have ever seen (so much that it is almost hard to believe she is a woman), and I am truly NOT trying to be mean in saying that: I'm being honest.

*I like calling her/him "Big Mike". I used to think I shouldnt say that because it would be mean in case she ISNT a trans, but then I realized she is a terrible person anyway.

Please take this junk elsewhere. COVID-19 conspiracy theories and talk about Michelle Obama being biologically male because she's too ugly to be a woman is inappropriate here. It's disgusting.

You see the region name? "Right to Life"? If we believe that every human being deserves dignified treatment from the moment of conception, then we... believe that every human being deserves dignified treatment from the moment of conception. That means everyone, not just babies.

Post by The Confederacy of Beastland suppressed by a moderator.

The Federation of Roborian

The Confederacy of Beastland wrote:I don't believe in theories (The Michelle Obama thing is proposed, I don't believe it):

Come on man.

The Confederacy of Beastland wrote:

But anyway, I really think Obama's wife is a man.

There's no valid reason whatsoever to harp on this random, bizarre, and pretty openly spiteful conspiracy. It's not even as if it has anything to do with politics, "Obama is selling children to lizard people" is at least theoretically a 'policy' matter, "Michelle Obama is secretly male" has nothing to do with anything besides you apparently really not liking the way she looks. (In this conspiracy, where did their biological children even come from, did State Senator Obama run a secret black-ops mission in 1998 to kidnap infants to defend the cover-up?) If you want to talk about policy, we can do that here, I'm fine with you giving takes on voting and COVID if presented as actual arguments because at least those are policy-related opinions, but this is just void of anything that would be productive discussion. I'm sure there are plenty of other places for you to talk about how ugly you think she is if you really have an overwhelming urge to do so, this would not be one of them.

«12. . .2,2712,2722,2732,2742,2752,2762,277. . .2,5072,508»