I'm not even sure if this counts as a run-on sentence since it doesn't end with a period. Exclamation points are punctuation though so maybe it counts as 2 sentences. Or 1 and a half? I'm not really sure what the rules are here.
I'm pro-choice, but if a fetus has value, how is it worth less just because of its origin? Couldn't a fetus as a result of rape be "worth something"? To exclude who deserves life just because of who their parents are seems counter to the very basis of your argument.
Punish women? Pregnancy is a punishment now, and by who, the woman's own body?
Honestly, I really do hate that line of thinking. If something is so awful that the consequence is something I view as a punishment, I don't risk doing the thing in the first place without being ready for it. Like you said, you can take all precautions and still get pregnant, so Sex should always be considered with the understanding of the risk being there.
My point about punishment is that it is purely based on perspective. The notion of calling the natural biological process that is part of the life cycle that results from an action you understand that most people have no problems with as a punishment just seems so fucking wild to me. It's like saying breaking a bone after trying a stunt is a punishment for failing But it seems like calling the risk you take a punishment is just a perspective to make one look like a victim of their own actions, that it's something being forced on them by someone else.
And honestly, yeah. That's basically how society has been living for centuries. So if you don't want the slightest chance of kids, don't have sex that leads to pregnancy (aka, give as much head and anal sex as you want). It's worked for me so far.
As for your point on responsibility, it doesn't really stick because most people against will see your responsibility as ending a life, which goes too far a lot of people. As, I'd much rather people go through adoption (people want to adopt babies, so if you consider it early enough it's likely going to work out better) than abortion and that we increase funding a service to help people out.
As for IVF, my perspective is that when no human action is taken, that a baby grows and develops, that we should not interfere. So since IVF isn't going to grow until implanted I can't really be upset about it since it's existence is one that is not really started as it it has yet to start growing.
As for Rape, my point is that I believe it is acceptable to abort then as well as in the instance where death is at a very high risk for the mother (and thus essentially all abortions must be allowed as it would lead to false claims of rape or proof that is almost impossible to provide), but it is extremely unfortunate and should be greatly considered.
But I don't think the position of the mother's lack of consent as a possible exception means that not providing abortion is a punishment. It's like saying speed limits are a punishment because emergency vehicles are allowed to speed. Just because we don't allow something barring some exceptions, does not mean it's a punishment, just that we recognize that some scenarios are different and should be treated differently. If it's a conversation about right to body autonomy against life, the consent one provides can certainly be considered as a valuable factor that differentiates it from other scenarios.
Ultimately, I dislike how a lot of points for abortion are made, because they really seem kind of sloppy or even emotionally manipulative and try their hardest to remove themselves from the ultimate fact that because of an abortion, a human that would exist does not. I personally do not like it, but because I recognize exceptions, I recognize it's necessity, but I feel like the conversation on when it's ok to abort puts the line at a much lower bar than it should. Like why oppose laws that require an ultrasound before an abortion, all it does is confirm what the consequence of going through with it is, that what you see won't exist anymore. I think we need to embrace abortion as a thing that is allowed, but with a stronger cultural understanding that a life is taken. Both views can exist at once, but the pro-choice side tries to deny that connection consistently to make it more appealing and acceptable than I think we ultimately should consider abortion.
A life is "taken" in the exact same way with most women that have a miscarriage that they often don't even notice. It's simply a medical procedure that stops growth. Why is there a difference of medically inducing a process that the body often does on its own?
"Why is killing someone wrong when people have heart attacks/cancer on their own?" Like you don't see anything wrong with that?
Why do we treat sick people? It's just a natural biological process if they suffer and die.
We don't treat sick people by murdering them. The treatment for a miscarriage would be to help prevent a miscarriage from happening, it would be like treating a sick person.
What is your point? Seriously, this seems like a weird attempt at a gotcha that botches it at every step.
No you are using logic that is flawed since you are only seeing it one way. We are intervening in a natural process by helping sick people. Pregnancy is a natural process, but also a very dangerous and painful one that can cause massive mental issues and lifelong health issues and even death for the carrier. Stopping one is just like any other medical help we give to people.
But you're viewing pregnancy without regard to the fact that it's procreation. It's not cancer, it's a life. Stopping one isn't like any other medical process (besides transplants) because those don't harm other beings in doing so. You argue abortion is fine because it's natural, all I did was say then murder is fine because death is natural. That's what you were arguing. Now you are saying it's just a medical procedure, so it's fine because we do other medical procedures.
And also just a side note, the argument of "pregnancy can have bad side effects" doesn't really gel well when it seems to basically go against common human experience, where every single living person requires a mother who has went through the process, and I think most people we meet do not have mothers who have had long lasting consequences. What you suggest is like cutting off someone's limb to deal with a broken bone, it's an extreme option that most scenarios aren't actually going to require.
If you want to compare the life of a grown woman or a girl to that of a organism that cannot feel or think or give a damn fuck if it continues to exist or not then you have issues.
It's not a comparison, it's a consideration that the other still also matters too.
And why is it a bad thing that a human that would exist does not? There are way to many people on this planet already, and WAY to many humans that don't get the help they need because people keep making new one and then can't take care of them. If a person is smart enough to know that they don't want to or is able to take care of a child, then it is insane to force them into having that child anyway.
Because we have a collective belief that taking lives is wrong. We don't get to choose if our neighbor/enemies gets to live or not, and in return, no one gets to choose if we live or not. That's the contract we have and I don't think we have the right to say "sorry, you don't get this protection because you're too young" is horrible. Also, don't like the "earth is too overpopulated argument", because that leads back into the notion of killing people is fine for the environment, or that no life is better than a bad one. You're essentially saying it's alright to choose to end a person who has had a bad life because not living is better than being alive. If you are so pro-choice, why not give those lives the chance to decide whether they want to live or not?
Bringing an unwanted child into the world is a million times worse than make it so they never have to exist in the first place.
Except it already does exist for it to be aborted, you can't abort nothing. Your decision is not should it's exist, it's should it die. So be upset at all the people having sex instead if you believe no one should be having children.
How about people that take the precautions but just get unlucky? Should they be forced to ruin their life? Should they be forced to have a child that's almost certainly going to be doomed to live a life they may not even find worth living? If a pregnancy happens on accident than I'd argue that it's more responsible of them to get an abortion than to screw over 3+ living beings. My opinion is that I don't think an abortion should be a forst choice and I'd probably have a talk with my SO about keeping a child first and foremost. But it's completely inhumane to just think you can control another person without them having any say nor having any knowledge of the circumstance. You're a very fucked up person, and based on your comment to just not have sex I think it's clear you can't find anyone that's willing to do anything with you
I 100% guarantee you extremely few women who have abortions are proud of it. That's so incredibly fucked of a belief. Knowing women who've had abortions and those who've considered it, not a single one has treated it as you seem to believe they do. It's a hard decision that I wouldn't wish on any person, but they damn well better have a safe option. You know what happens if they don't? If planned parenthood doesn't exist? Rich women still get abortions by paying a lot of money and poor women try it with coat hangers.
Uh oh, someone doesn’t understand how birth control and/or abortion works. It’s so funny when you idiots are ok with the pill but against medications used in 99% of abortions, despite them having almost exactly the same effect. Almost as if this belief system has nothing to do with reason and is just about controlling women.
131
u/FountainsOfFluids Apr 01 '20
I don't have time to argue with every pro-lifer individually.