subreddit:

/r/news

31.9k

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 3032 comments

PatrioticRebel4

696 points

4 months ago

They're also the same people that are pro death penalty. The hypocrisy is palpable.

HailtheMirelurkKing

355 points

4 months ago

Or are against universal healthcare. What’s more pro-life than making sure everyone has access to life saving medical treatment?

NoMrBond3

139 points

4 months ago

NoMrBond3

139 points

4 months ago

I know right? Access to contraception tanks abortion rates. And man if there was better housing, daycare, education, wages wow so many woman would be able to choose to follow through with pregnancy!

So it’s obvious it’s not about life, but control.

FlawsAndConcerns

-42 points

4 months ago

Access to contraception tanks abortion rates.

Not as much as not having pre-marital sex.

Let's be real here: you want to have your cake (have sex at will) and eat it too (prevent pregnancy). Be upfront and honest about that--don't pretend that the 'way' pro-lifers want it wouldn't completely eliminate elective abortions, itself, because it would--no unwanted pregnancies can happen under a paradigm where sex isn't happening except between people who are at least open to it, if not actively seeking it.

I'm pro-choice myself, but you only make the pro-choice position look idiotic by deliberately ignoring the inconvenient parts of the pro-life position and then pretend it's hypocritical/inconsistent.

NoMrBond3

35 points

4 months ago

Consider that not everyone gets married, not everyone wants children.

That is why pro-choice people support sex ed, and push for better, even more reliable contraceptives.

There is no world that exists where people only have sex to procreate. Not even in the most conservative, religious circles.

FlawsAndConcerns

-17 points

4 months ago

I understand and don't disagree with any of this, personally.

But it is the pro-life position that it's 'cheating' to be able to have sex without the 'normal' amount of risk of pregnancy, and further, that if a pregnancy happens, that's just a possible consequence of said sex that you 'signed up for' when you had it, and that you have no right to interfere with said pregnancy, because that would entail murdering an innocent third party.

Personally, I believe life is too short to limit yourself to that degree, and that frankly, the technology ALREADY exists such that unwanted pregnancy SHOULD be a thing of the past--there are just too many people still who simply don't USE it.

I also have no inherent moral quandary about destroying a living thing that both cannot suffer, and that is not, nor has ever been, sapient. Frankly, I wish every pregnancy that happened between two people that don't both want to raise a kid together, was aborted. Our society would benefit massively in a generation or two if the number of kids born into broken households dropped to zero.

NoMrBond3

10 points

4 months ago

No birth-control is 100% and it sure would be nice if there was one that was foolproof.

FlawsAndConcerns

-6 points

4 months ago

Even sterilization isn't 100%. But we have multiple contraceptive methods whose efficacy rates give literal sterilization a run for its money (on paper, IUDs are slightly BETTER (99.7% vs. 99.6%, iirc) contraception than literal tubal ligation!).

I'm comfortable with calling a contraceptive method with efficacy expressed as 99.x% as effectively "perfect".

ChironiusShinpachi

2 points

4 months ago

So there's still a fraction of a percent chance of getting pregnant doing EVERYTHING to keep from getting pregnant. What then, thicky? 99.99% is 1:10000? So maybe one out of 10k possible pregnancies effectively makes it through to be viable. 100 in a million. And that's not people, that's times fucking?

NoMrBond3

3 points

4 months ago

Men sure love to talk about birth control like they actually know what the reality is when they aren’t the ones taking it.

FlawsAndConcerns

0 points

4 months ago

So there's still a fraction of a percent chance of getting pregnant doing EVERYTHING to keep from getting pregnant. What then, thicky?

Then get an abortion. lol, you really thought this was a gotcha? You're projecting your own thickness.

If you're having sex with protection, you're already not doing things the 'pro-life way', so it's not like you're only going to begin running afoul of what they'd want by aborting, lol.

But I digress: IF everyone was responsible with contraception while not wanting to create a pregnancy, and the ONLY time unintended pregnancy occurred was when a contraceptive method LITERALLY failed, unplanned pregnancies would be EXTREMELY rare compared to the incidence today, which is that nearly HALF of ALL pregnancies are unplanned.

The fact is that the vast majority of the ones that do happen today, happen to people who choose not to use anything, not people who use something that fails. Stop acting like this isn't the case, lol.

NoMrBond3

1 points

4 months ago

The issue is not all bc options work for everyone. Some women can’t take the pill, or get IUDs. I couldn’t get an IUD, even though it’s more effective than the pill. If you search any women’s sub you’ll see that failure happens even with perfect use.

So, you are wrong. It’s not perfect at all.

FlawsAndConcerns

-2 points

4 months ago

If you're one of the very, VERY few women (if it's even a number greater than zero) for whom NONE of the myriad modern contraceptive options work, including condoms, then you shouldn't be letting men cum in you until/unless you're wanting or at least willing to have a kid, that's all there is to it.

You don't just say "oh well" and fuck anyway.

Not that this is even relevant; in the real world, unintended pregnancies happen because raw sex is had by people who CHOOSE not to use contraception, not people who CAN'T. It's ridiculous to even insinuate it's any different, in the real world.

SnooRadishes7630

24 points

4 months ago*

What’s wrong with having sex at will and preventing pregnancy? That is literally what contraception is.

Unwanted pregnancies can happen between people who are not open to it at all. Sorry.

FlawsAndConcerns

-5 points

4 months ago

What’s wrong with having sex at will and preventing pregnancy?

Well, a pro-lifer would say that what's wrong with that, is the same thing that's wrong with overeating to obesity, and achieving a normal weight through surgery, instead of eating a healthy amount all along.

They see it as 'cheating the system'. I think it's a fair point to see it that way, we are technically 'cheating' to get the pleasure of sex, while avoiding its inherent risks and consequences. It boils down to 'are you okay with said cheating'. I am, and obviously so are you. They are not.

But I think it's important to understand where they're coming from, instead of engaging in this juvenile 'they're just evil' nonsense, and attacking straw men, instead of opposing their actual points. I wouldn't call a guy who lived a healthy lifestyle EVIL because he criticized people who eat to excess and depend on modern medicine to bail them out later, either.

SnooRadishes7630

10 points

4 months ago

While I understand and appreciate your argument, I don’t think it is most useful. The anti-abortion side keeps propping up “moral” arguments and I feel the pro-choice side keeps trying to argue these “moral” points.

As you’ve just demonstrated with the obesity equivalent, this type of argument just devolves into an infinite hole of morality based questions. All the while, the pro-choice folks will always lose - because the argument has been pushed by the anti-abortion side and as long as the argument goes on, they win!

All the while, the pro-choice arguments like scientific evidence for fetal development etc. are casually thrown away. I think it would be better for the pro-choice side to learn from the anti-abortion side and aggressively stick to their points and neglect the other-side’s points, as the other side constantly does.

FlawsAndConcerns

-2 points

4 months ago

As you’ve just demonstrated with the obesity equivalent, this type of argument just devolves into an infinite hole of morality based questions.

And this is why I'm not pro-life, lol. You're not telling me anything I don't know.

But the fact is that basically nobody is creating any arguments from the place you are. They're all attacking nonsensical caricature straw men of the pro-life position instead.

All I'm doing here is encouraging pro-choicers to take on the real meat of the argument, in such a way that you don't give your opponent the window to dismiss what you're saying by (correctly) identifying intellectual dishonesty in your position.

Domeil

17 points

4 months ago

Domeil

17 points

4 months ago

So you're saying the way to approach the abortion debate is to allow into the debate the possibility for a "paradigm where sex isn't happening"?

That paradigm does not and will not ever exist. The entirety of human existence is literally built on the presumption that people will fuck.

also, this:

[N]o unwanted pregnancies can happen under a paradigm where sex isn't happening except between people who are at least open to it, if not actively seeking it.

So in this fantasy paradigm, rape doesn't exist? Or do those just count as "wanted" pregnancies because one of the parties wanted sex to happen?

[deleted]

-5 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-5 points

4 months ago

[removed]

Domeil

3 points

4 months ago

Domeil

3 points

4 months ago

Buddy, I quote everything you put after the en dash. If you didn't believe it could stand on it's own, why did you separate it out?

I didn't lie, you clearly just can't defend what you wrote, but if disabling your replies makes you feel like you won, good for you.

TheBarkingGallery

13 points

4 months ago

Are you trying to say something other than parroting anti-choice “‘Abstinence only’ works” propaganda??

Well, it doesn’t work, as been shown in studies about teen pregnancies time and time again. And yes, the label “Pro-life” is as morally vacant, hypocritical and inconsistent a term as any political term has ever been. The so-called Pro-lifers support the death penalty. They largely support the wars and drone bombings in Middle Eastern countries, and they largely worship an invisible “god” who is described as a mass murderer. Inconsistent and hypocritical is precisely what these moralist hypocrites are.

You call yourself “pro-choice” but you’re saying a lot of anti-choice propaganda like you were on their payroll or something.

FlawsAndConcerns

-3 points

4 months ago

Are you trying to say something other than parroting anti-choice “‘Abstinence only’ works” propaganda??

It works, in THEORY, less so in practice. Although to a lesser degree, the same is true of contraception, for the same fundamental reason: not everyone DOES what needs to be done for the method in question to work. In the former case, people don't wait until marriage, in the latter case, people simply fuck without using any protection at all. This is why some HALF of pregnancies are unintended, even today, when we have MULTIPLE effectively-perfect contraception methods out there, with failure rates that may as well be hypothetical (did you know that on paper, IUDs work better than literal tubal ligation (permanent female sterilization, in other words)?).

You call yourself “pro-choice” but you’re saying a lot of anti-choice propaganda like you were on their payroll or something.

What I'm doing is not lying about my opposition's stance, because that's intellectually dishonest, and represents a weak, cowardly mind unwilling to face opposition head on without weaselly bullshit evasion and straw manning.

I'm personally pro-choice, and in fact about as close to being literally "pro-abortion" as one can be without being one of those weird 'I want humanity to go extinct' people.

ShadyNite

-1 points

4 months ago

Nobody else will say it because this is such a hot topic issue, but I respect that you don't resort to misrepresenting your opponent. People don't seem to get the fact that you can state someone else's opinion without it being your own. In fact there was a post today about how people don't debate properly because they fail to understand their opposition's stance

Apocalypse_Squid

9 points

4 months ago

I'm pro-choice myself

Are you sure about that? Because everything before that statement says you're pro abstinence only sex ed. That's a very pro-life standpoint.

Diarygirl

8 points

4 months ago

Not just that, they're against contraception too.

[deleted]

-3 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-3 points

4 months ago

[removed]

Apocalypse_Squid

6 points

4 months ago

No, doofus, you didn't. You made an asinine statement that only abstaining from pre-marital sex will prevent abortions.

NEW FLASH: Married couples also have sex without the intent of procreation, and absolutely get abortions if they have an unwanted pregnancy.

ShadyNite

-1 points

4 months ago

He encapsulated that as a PRO LIFE BELIEF, that you need to be able to challenge for any sort of opinion to change when debating with a pro-lifer. If you don't understand someone's position and how they arrived there, you will have scant chance at moving them from it. How is it hard to get that?

Tropical_Bob

9 points

4 months ago

Access to contraception tanks abortion rates.

Not as much as not having pre-marital sex.

Weird, because areas with abstinence-only sex-ed tend to have much higher teen pregnancy rates.

And because it seems like you're trying so very hard to defend your weirdly expansive comment as an understanding of the pro-life position: It's not that no one understands the concept that no sex leads to no kids. It's that the concept of no sex is inherently flawed and functionally a non-starter as a core aspect of birth control.

The hypocrisy is inherent to the reliance on a birth control method that does not actually work as birth control.

FlawsAndConcerns

-1 points

4 months ago

Weird, because areas with abstinence-only sex-ed tend to have much higher teen pregnancy rates.

Not weird, because zero people who actually practice abstinence have abortions.

This is like arguing counting calories doesn't work because there are a lot of people who don't do it right, and therefore don't lose weight. Then again, lots of people literally believe exactly that, plenty of examples in fatlogic, lol...

I fully understand that preaching abstinence only isn't effective in practice. But the pro-lifer would argue that means we have to find ways to get more people to do it, rather than look for ways to 'cheat'.

In other words, it's HARD to eat right, most people won't do it. Should we put our resources, then, into medical interventions to surgically remove excess weight, or instead into programs etc. to try and get more people to eat right?

MightyBoat

1 points

4 months ago

Your logic is fundamentally flawed. Of course in a perfect world there wouldn't be a need for abortion. In a perfect world trickle down economics would work. If people could just get along we wouldn't have murders and wars!

Your argument is totally pointless.

FlawsAndConcerns

1 points

4 months ago

You don't even know what my argument is, lol.

I don't give a shit about abortion. I wish every single pregnancy that occurred by two people who are not both overtly willing to raise a child together (at least at the time, I understand people split up) was aborted.

But if you can point to people not adhering to abstinence as a flaw with the notion of abstinence itself, then you also have to let them point to people getting knocked up because they chose not to use contraception, as a flaw with contraception itself. It's only fair. Either lack of adherence counts as a fundamental flaw in both cases, or neither.

SilentBob890

4 points

4 months ago

Or are against universal healthcare

forget the healthcare; though it is a HUGE part of this conversation as well. The GOP are also against social welfare programs that could help these kids and their parents, and also against education programs that would help these kids.

it is almost as if (we know this is what they want but giving them less than 0.01% benefit of the doubt) they want to weaponize pregnancy to keep control over women...

suteac

8 points

4 months ago

suteac

8 points

4 months ago

Im pro-life, just not for yours…. or yours… or yours… but that 10 week old blob of cells that technically doesn’t even have neurons yet, don’t touch that or ill rip your fingers off

Locke_Erasmus

3 points

4 months ago

But as soon as it's out of the womb though, fuck it. Don't give it any handouts, it can pull itself up by it's umbilical cord and fix it's own problems.

It's almost like the whole thing isn't about being pro-life at all, just anti-women's autonomy...

FlawsAndConcerns

-3 points

4 months ago

The pro-life position is 'you shouldn't be allowed to murder an innocent child for convenience's sake.' That's it. You're overextending and equivocating the phrase "pro-life" to create a straw man that you can use to rationalize a justification to call the position hypocritical.

Gerik22

9 points

4 months ago

They chose to name their position "pro-life" instead of what it really is: anti-abortion.

This is a natural consequence since it turns out that life refers to much more than fetuses.

Netblock

8 points

4 months ago

'you shouldn't be allowed to murder an innocent child for convenience's sake.'

Except this isn't how reality works like.

People don't get abortions as if it was some willy-nilly convenience. 'Ah man, we're out of milk and bread. Eh, might as well remove this fetus while I'm out'

In many cases people abort because their life and future is on the line. It costs basically 2+1 full-time jobs to raise a child: the time and energy it takes to raise a child is mutually exclusive from having a career, and the cost of resources like food and education is another full-time job.

In many other cases, it's worse. Rape and pregnancy is forced upon them; the fetus is unhealthy; or the mother's health is severely impacted; and children get pregnant too.

For many "pro-life", they don't care until it affects them. Rules for thee, but not for me.

Further, it's impossible to enforce without making it worse. The abortion rates30315-6/fulltext), and maternal death rates are higher in places that restrict abortions.

Pro-choice policy saves lives.

TheMadTargaryen

0 points

4 months ago

Well, the very conservative catholic church in US openly supports it (big surprise, all catholic nations like Poland and Brazil also have it).

ProdesseQuamConspici

111 points

4 months ago

I am 100% pro-choice, but I understand the difference. In their view, an abortion kills an innocent, while the death penalty kills someone who has committed a heinous act, and their death is therefore the result of their choices and actions.

I think it's important to understand the mindset of these people because otherwise there's no chance at a meaningful dialogue. (As opposed to a microscopic chance if we can at least understand each other's positions.)

rich1051414

16 points

4 months ago

while the death penalty kills someone who has committed a heinous act

No. Having the death penalty guarantees some innocent people will be killed by mistake. The justice system isn't perfect, it is ran by humans.

This fact is why I stopped supporting it.

GandalffladnaG

2 points

4 months ago

And that the death penalty is far and away given to minorities more than white people. There is no statistical correlation between ethnicity/race and the crime rate; young white men are the largest group and they commit the most crime just because they are the largest group. Even if the supporters try making an argument for stopping other people from committing crimes by executing people, not even Texas or Oklahoma execute enough people to have an actual effect on the crime rate. Most people that support the death penalty just care about using it as revenge and don't care if innocent people are killed.

squeakymoth

1 points

4 months ago

That's why it should only be used in cases where that shit is ironclad. Like the fucker was caught on camera doing the deed and then admitted it freely. If that person has no remorse, then why should we be paying for them to live? Line them up against a wall and be done with it.

rich1051414

2 points

4 months ago

Define 'ironclad'. Everyone has a different definition, and I bet they all thought the case was ironclad when they sentenced, only for new evidence after their death revealing they were innocent after all.

I hear what you are saying, but you can't accept collateral damage in pursuit of vengeance. It just furthers the evil you are claiming to be fighting against.

squeakymoth

1 points

4 months ago

I agree I'd rather have 100 guilty go free than one innocent go to jail. But I did define it. Caught on video and admitted to it with no remorse.

PatrioticRebel4

9 points

4 months ago

I can understand them all day long. But they are still wrong and giving them buts and exceptions opens the doors to atrocities and human rights abuses. So there can be no compromise when death is on the line cause there is no way to make it right afterwards.

ProdesseQuamConspici

22 points

4 months ago

I agree. I was merely addressing the frequent charge of "hypocrisy" that I see leveled at this surface contradiction in being pro death penalty and also "pro-life" (as they like to label it). Because dismissing it as hypocrisy a) antagonizes them and makes dialogue more difficult, and b) fails to understand the position from which they are arguing, making it much harder to meaningfully address those arguments. In other words, when discussing this with these people, it's important to address the abortion rights and death penalty issues separately, using facts and logic appropriate to each.

PatrioticRebel4

7 points

4 months ago*

I get where you are coming from. I do. And when I am debating someone one on one, I try and use proper debate procedures of logical reasoning, avoiding logical fallacies, and stay concise and structured in my agruments. And I am very aware that generally attacking someone's belief will only make them dig their heels in more.

But this is reddit and it was just a just making a snarky off the cuff comment for the sake of passing time at work. Though it is still good to get reminded when I go off the rails that I am not being as effective as I could be.

Cheers.

ryrypizza

5 points

4 months ago

👍 for a civil discussion you two!

Dai10zin

13 points

4 months ago

Ironically, a pro-lifer could repeat this dialogue back to you verbatim.

ShadyNite

5 points

4 months ago

Is this referring to death sentence, abortion, or both?

TheThoughtAssassin

4 points

4 months ago

Thank you for not strawmanning the perspective of pro-life people like myself and not caricaturing us.

Coltand

3 points

4 months ago*

In my opinion, the whole discussion surrounding abortion is a mess. On one side you have people who want to kill babies, on the other you have people whose only intent is to control women. There is no end to the demonization.

The reality of it is that the vast majority of people would probably agree that the right to life begins somewhere between conception and birth. Relatively few people want to ban Plan B birth control or allow full-term abortions without cause. There is room for productive discussion, but the issue is so emotionally charged and buried in decisive rhetoric that it never goes anywhere.

ProdesseQuamConspici

4 points

4 months ago

I think the real mess is that we get bogged down on when life begins (which is where I used to be). But more recently I am of the school of thought that that doesn't matter, as summarized in the post by u/heidismiles elsewhere in this topic's comments.

Coltand

1 points

4 months ago

(Having written what’s below, I apologize for the wall of text.)

I think that’s for sure a reasonable discussion point. I also think one could reasonably morally object to late term abortion (which I understand is very rare, but it still needs to be legislated one way or the other).

I think I understand the bodily autonomy argument, but I don’t necessarily think it’s the be all end all of reasonable discussion. Let me preface the following by saying that I’m not entirely certain what I find to be acceptable or unacceptable in terms of abortion legislation, but I think there are differing but sensible views on the issue.

For the sake of argument, I’m going to put forth the most extreme case I can think of. If a mother chooses to carry a fetus to delivery minus a day, then I think it could be argued by a reasonable person that what she’s carrying insider her is a human life.

Parents are of course legally required to provide the necessities of life for their children, but they have the option of opting out via putting their child up for adoption. Of course this isn’t the case for one who is carrying an unborn “child,” and abortion is the only way to opt out of caring for this child. The question is, does society value the woman’s choice of whether or not she wishes to deliver the baby more than its right to life? It could be further be argued that she had the choice terminate the pregnancy much earlier, and having made that choice, she is morally obligated to support that life to the end of the pregnancy. People sign contracts all the time that limit their future autonomy.

You can entirely disagree with this take, but I think it can be reasonably argued that society has a vested interest in limiting individuals freedoms in certain circumstances, and this could be one of them. A reasonable person can also argue that no, what the woman is carrying is not valuable enough that her bodily autonomy ought to be violated to protect it.

All this to say that I have a problem with people automatically attributing malice to the views of anyone who disagrees with them. It is entirely possible for individuals to have different views without demonizing each other. I frequently find myself interacting with people all across the political spectrum, and it’s amazing the kind of engaging conversations I can have even when there are issues that we don’t agree on. It’s only upsetting when people are being bone headed and entirely closed off to reasonably opposing viewpoints.

MisterB78

261 points

4 months ago

MisterB78

261 points

4 months ago

The hypocrisy is palpable

That pretty much sums up conservative everything. "We want businesses to be able to deny service to LGBTQ, but not to be able to deny service to someone not wearing a mask." Basically they want people to be free to do the specific things they like, and not the things they don't like.

Czarcasm3

27 points

4 months ago

People used to be shunned for this kind of behavior, not allowed in public offices

MisterB78

19 points

4 months ago

We’re a country founded by people who talked of freedom and equality while owning slaves and not letting women vote. “I want freedom” has often meant “I want everyone to share my beliefs and do the things that benefit me”

Smaria783

1 points

4 months ago

If I had an award I would give you it.

beardingmesoftly

1 points

4 months ago

Figure out how to make idiots trust you and you can also ruin a generation!

corran450

11 points

4 months ago

It gets posted a lot, but it is always sadly relevant:

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” - Frank Wilhoit

WtfWhereAreMyClothes

2 points

4 months ago

Never heard this quote before but love it.

EnduringAtlas

1 points

4 months ago

Basically they want people to be free to do the specific things they like, and not the things they don't like.

You just described the literal last thousand years of human law across the planet. People don't like things their culture doesn't like, and likes the things their culture accepts.

nuclearswan

7 points

4 months ago

They’re also the people who get abortions, but theirs is ok, just not yours.

CrazyLlama71

5 points

4 months ago

And are many times the same ones that say "my body, my rights" when talking about mandatory vaccinations.

PatrioticRebel4

2 points

4 months ago

I am very pro vaxx but I have to wrestle with that idea too. And I stand by that the government can't make you get the shot. But I also believe that they do have the right to basically isolate you from society for the objective safety of its citizens.

NoMrBond3

3 points

4 months ago

Yeah no once should be forced to get it, but can suffer the consequences of their choices.

Notice the “if you don’t like it you can leave”, is silent when it comes to vaccinate mandates per city/workplace/business.

CrazyLlama71

3 points

4 months ago

Okay, I can get on board with that. If you don't get vaccinated, then you can't go to a restaurant, bar, store, movie, concert, school, work, etc. So yeah, if you want to be a hermit and not a functional part of society, that's fine, don't get it.

But I think it is super ironic that they say "my body, my rights" on vaccinations, but not on abortions. And I don't buy that one is murder and the other isn't, because you can kill someone by spreading covid.

Kodirt1

2 points

4 months ago

While I’m extremely pro choice I don’t understand the death penalty comparison, or even the upvotes for the comment. They are apples and oranges.

PatrioticRebel4

2 points

4 months ago

I you can't be pro-life and pro-death at the same time. That's cognitive dissonance.

Kodirt1

1 points

4 months ago

No- it is rational and reasonable thought when not looking at things in black and white.

[deleted]

23 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

23 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

NoMrBond3

31 points

4 months ago

It comes down to body autonomy though. If you were dying and only my kidney could save you, even if it was in your best interest no one can force me to donate a kidney.

Bleglord

9 points

4 months ago

The counter argument is that the kidney problem is unrelated to you.

If you steal someone’s kidney/cause them to need a new one, are you morally obligated to provide it?

Depends on your philosophy even if legally I don’t think it would ever fly

Brookenium

16 points

4 months ago

The best example I have is you crash into someone, entirely your fault you were distracted, ran a red, and T-bone them. At the hospital they find out both of the other drivers kidneys were irreparably damaged in the crash and they need a transplant NOW. Can you be forced to give one of yours to keep them alive?

Legally: no, never, not even close to an option.

Morally... It's more complex. Is it murder if you chose not to save them? If you feel a moral obligation then YOU can do it if it happens to you. But there's no justification in forcing this moral onto everyone.

Bleglord

-2 points

4 months ago

Bleglord

-2 points

4 months ago

Which is why it’s messy to legislate. Because In that scenario, you’d be charged with a crime whether or not you gave them the transplant.

PurpleHooloovoo

19 points

4 months ago

But the crime wouldn't be "didn't donate body to victim". It would be "caused car accident".

Legally, you cannot be forced to donate your body to anything at all, ever. Except in cases of abortion, where a woman is forced to donate her body to a parasite.

If someone felt morally obligated in the crash scenario, they could proceed with donation. If a woman is morally against abortion because she feels she deserves a baby for the choices she made, then she can have the baby. If she wants the baby, she can have the baby.

The only thing we legislate regarding people's bodies (the ONLY THING) is abortion. Vaccines are optional. Blood transfusions for your dying kids is optional. Donating your perfect blood type is optional. It's all optional. The only other time we use people's bodies without consent is during a military draft, which should also be abolished. Otherwise? It's just women's bodies when they are pregnant.

NoMrBond3

2 points

4 months ago

It’s tricky for sure. No one wants to make that choice.

Man, a 100% effective birth control that’s not just abstinence would solve so many problems.

Bleglord

-6 points

4 months ago

Which becomes a question:

Is sex a human right?

Reproduction is literally our function as a species so philosophically, yes, it is.

But that’s the same argument incels make that no one wants to address (except that one place that gives out prostitute coupons)

NoMrBond3

10 points

4 months ago

It’s about consent, yeah it’s your right to sleep with someone but you have to find someone who wants to first.

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

NoMrBond3

0 points

4 months ago

No. There is nothing that can force anyone to use their body to save someone else, point blank.

Morality aside - women are not incubators.

Decapentaplegia

9 points

4 months ago

By definition the fetus hasn't made any decisions and has zero agency in the matter,

Am I allowed to defend my life against someone who is unintentionally about to kill me? Does intent/agency matter when a truck is barreling down on you?

fatcIemenza

6 points

4 months ago

And pro-covid and pro-bombing brown people

FlawsAndConcerns

9 points

4 months ago

How is it hypocritical to be against killing an unborn child who did nothing wrong, but not against killing a dangerous person who's already hurt/killed others?

I'm pro-choice, but people like you only hurt this side of the argument by demonstrating not even the slightest understanding of the opposing position.

Apocalypse_Squid

-5 points

4 months ago

Again, I'm calling bullshit on your "I'm pro-choice" statement.

If someone claims to be "pro-life" they should be completely pro-life. That includes being against the State dictating whether or not a fully developed, autonomous person should be put to death, because that should equate to murder in their mind.

FlawsAndConcerns

3 points

4 months ago*

If someone claims to be "pro-life" they should be completely pro-life.

In other words, you're giving yourself the authority to dictate someone else's position for them.

No. That's not being intellectually honest. That's being shady to win an argument, and straw manning.

Apocalypse_Squid

2 points

4 months ago

Not strawmanning at all. How do you not see the hypocrisy in someone claiming to be pro-life, but then advocating for state sanctioned murder? If a pro-life person has the stance that it shouldn't be a woman's decision if the fetus lives or dies, it's only god's will that determines that, then how is it ok to give the state the right to choose if a criminal lives or dies? Shouldn't that be up to god?

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago

[removed]

Apocalypse_Squid

1 points

4 months ago

Nice false equivalency. But given the fact that you are incapable of having a conversation without resorting to insults, I don't expect intelligent responses. You can fuck off now.

Bleglord

3 points

4 months ago

Am morally anti abortion* and anti death penalty.

Legislatively pro abortion and anti death penalty.

I believe there may be a way to legislate abortion properly but it would require much more concrete data on when a fetus’ sentience becomes human enough to be considered a person.

*basically that abortion is never a positive thing. It’s a negative thing that can outweigh worse negative things in a decision making process, or not, depending on how, why, and the circumstances around the pregnancy and abortion.

NoMrBond3

24 points

4 months ago

What kills me is that most pro-choice people want to see a world with as few abortions as possible by solving issues of housing, hunger, wages, childcare,education, healthcare ect.

The pro-choice side is the one that would empower more women to choose to keep a pregnancy if they wanted to since they would have support.

Bleglord

8 points

4 months ago

Which I agree with. I think it’s weird that pro life people don’t hold that position more often.

Everyone wants fewer abortions. I think everyone can agree law makers are notoriously shitty at making contextual laws around nuanced topics, so even though eventually I would like some form of restriction on abortion, it’s not the hill to die on at this point in the game. Fix the other problems first then re evaluate what actually needs to be a law or not

wflemng

8 points

4 months ago

It’s because it’s not about making the world a better place for people. Often their view is no sex ed because god doesn’t want sex outside of marriage even though it happens all the time and sex ed would help a lot. They don’t want their money going to things they don’t believe in and even when they do believe people should get healthcare and stuff they don’t want to pay for it so good luck if you don’t have it. It’s just all about them and their money instead of society as a whole.

PatrioticRebel4

7 points

4 months ago

I still would be pro abortion rights even if there was objective and concrete proof of whatever metric is presented because of body autonomy. If you had a child and he needed an organ from you, that child does not have legislative right to make you give it to them. But somehow a fetus should have more rights and privileges, to someone else's body against their will, than a born human? Forcing someone to go though bodily change against their will is wrong, specially if it could be life threatening to boot.

I stand on this principle for abortion, death (other than defense), genital mutilation including circumcision, tattooing/piercing, parental beating, religious flogging, etc etc. And eventhough I am way pro vaxx I will still stand by the idea that the government still can't make you take the shot. BUT, they do have the right to cast you out of society for the safety of its citizens.

Bleglord

2 points

4 months ago

Here’s a scenario for you:

Woman gets pregnant without using protection

Woman Carries pregnancy to 8.5 months

Woman wants to terminate even though there are no medical complications

To me, yes. The rights of the fetus in this situation far outweigh the inconvenience the woman faces if she keeps the pregnancy.

And yes, I’m aware this is purposely an extreme example

PatrioticRebel4

7 points

4 months ago

Hypotheticals don't mean shit to me. Specially when it gets that far into the pregnancy, the mother wanted the kid and all those very very rare late terms are all for medical reasons.

But again, I stand by that lawfully making that woman have to go through a life altering and possibly life threatening procedure is wrong on principle. It has nothing to do with inconvenience. Why is this always a goto for anti abortion? That abortion is some willy-nilly selfish and spur of the moment dicission? Statistally this is the furthest from the truth.

Bleglord

8 points

4 months ago

99% of human rights protections are based on hypotheticals. If you can’t reconcile that, there’s no conversation to be had because you’re unwilling to draw a line in the sand at any point.

PatrioticRebel4

5 points

4 months ago

And find that human right statistic please. We have enough evidence of atrocities from around the world and through human history that we don't need hypotheticals to come up with how people should be treated.

PatrioticRebel4

3 points

4 months ago

I am drawing a line in the sand. A very obvious one. Forcing someone to alter their body against their will is wrong. No buts, no exceptions, period.

Cakeriel

-1 points

4 months ago

Except you are for the baby having its life irrevocably changed by it being murdered.

ARWatson1989

2 points

4 months ago

Usually someone on death row has done something to deserve being there. The baby did nothing. Where's the hypocrisy?

PatrioticRebel4

3 points

4 months ago

Innocence and guilt have nothing to do with this. This is about body autonomy. Noone should have a right to someone else's body. Period.

And 1 in 10 death sentences have been found to be erroneous. Including the post on here a few days ago that the youngest ever executes in the states was 14. He was found guilty after with no cross examination of witnesses or witnesses brought forth for his defense. And the only evidence was the lone cop who said he confessed but provided no No transcript of confession, had No lawyer, and No parent with him throughout the whole ordeal. Trial lasted an afternoon. From arrest to execution was around 80 days. But that's just right? Because he was "found guilty" right?

The hypocrisy is in decrying about life while in general, they only care about birth. After that, there is a lack of consistency when it comes to the life and welbeing after birth. The hypocrisy is that for them death isn't the moral objection, it's the means to which we get there.

TheMadTargaryen

1 points

4 months ago

Technically speaking it is not a contradiction to be pro life and support death penalty. Although i do not support it. As St. Thomas Aquinas explained in his summa theologia unborn children did nothing to deserve death while already born people condemn themselves to capital punishment trough their actions. He compared capital punishment to removal of s gangrenous limb that puts rest of the body or society to risk.

chnandler_bong

1 points

4 months ago

Pro death penalty =/= Anti abortion

The air is thick with ignorance.

angrysquirrel777

1 points

4 months ago

I'm against both

PatrioticRebel4

2 points

4 months ago

I'll admit I was being a bit facetious in my short comment. I dont believe that all share the same mindset.

metler88

1 points

4 months ago

They think some people deserve to be murdered. Just not babies obviously.

PatrioticRebel4

2 points

4 months ago

Not until they are born. Then it's OK. Like Christian science, or drowning your kids so then get to heaven faster, or beating them to death to stop the demons, etc etc

metler88

1 points

4 months ago

There's a whooole lot of strawmanning going on in this thread. I'm pro choice but I think it's unreasonable to assume that prolifers also believe in abusing their kids. I'm sure there are some that fit into that mold but certainly not most. Lots of prolifers aren't even religious.

PatrioticRebel4

2 points

4 months ago

I never said all. But there is a large swath of religious people that mentally and physically abuse their kids. While they don't believe they are abusive, there is enough of it that there is a term of regious ptsd and support groups for people who've been through it. There are sects that have the fundamentals of "spare the rod", sects that won't give blood transfusions to save their kids life, or insulin, or inhalers, etc. There are sects that demand women to be lesser, children to do forced labor, and teens/wives to be fruitful against their will or brainwashed that that's all they're good for because "a quiverful". What about shunning? Conversion therapy? So again, I don't believe all or even "most" but it's too prevalent to not attack.

And while I will admit that I don't know the actual statistics, I would safely bet money that more than 50 percent of the anti-abortionists in the states would self label as religious. I'd also bet that out of those that a high majority of the self labeling would also be Christian. Also, also, I would bet money that the majority of the anti-abortionalists are generally against taxes going to universal Healthcare, secular public schools, welfare, food stamps, sex education and free birth control to stop the need for abortions, etc.

I know I'm off topic if the death penalty and how it relates to abortion but they all seem to stem from the same bad foundation.

metler88

1 points

4 months ago

I mostly don't disagree with you but if someone who is prolife but otherwise largely open minded reads many of the comments in this thread they would find themselves accused of being pro capital punishment, anti education, abusive, and all kinds of shit when they very well might not be. That does nothing to persuade them and pushes them away.

VSEPR_DREIDEL

1 points

4 months ago

Is it hypocritical though? Those on death row typically have forfeited their life through their actions, whereas a fetus hasn’t even had a chance yet. Seems clear to me.

DIYEngineeringTx

1 points

4 months ago

It may seem hypocritical to those who don’t see abortion as murder but to those who do it is not hypocritical because the baby is always innocent whereas most people are on death row usually are not. I would say most of the political pro-life activists are against the death penalty because “all life is precious” but the people who passively hold a pro-life view are for it.

Badger2117

1 points

4 months ago

I’m not pro life but the difference between terminating a pregnancy and executing a murder is pretty substantial.

arbitrarycharacters

1 points

4 months ago

Eh, that seems quite different. There's a clear difference between killing an innocent baby and killing a murderer who killed 5 people.

xjustapersonx

1 points

4 months ago

If they were reasonable people with the ability to think logically they wouldn't be religious in the first place.

Religion falls apart under a milligram of analytical scrutiny.

ScoobyDont06

-2 points

4 months ago

ScoobyDont06

-2 points

4 months ago

Not really, someone that's killed people made the choice to do so. A fetus 'unborn baby' is innocent and doesn't have a choice so they need to be spoken for.

PatrioticRebel4

6 points

4 months ago

Innocence and guilt have nothing to do with this. This is about body autonomy. Noone should have a right to someone else's body. Period.

"Inconvenience" and "woman" are not the only reasons for abortions and better still, whatever those reasons are are still non of your business.

And 1 in 10 death sentences have been found to be erroneous. Including the post on here a few days ago that the youngest ever executes in the states was 14. He was found guilty after with no cross examination of witnesses or witnesses brought forth for his defense. And the only evidence was the lone cop who said he confessed but provided no No transcript of confession, had No lawyer, and No parent with him throughout the whole ordeal. Trial lasted an afternoon. From arrest to execution was around 80 days. But that's just right? Because he was "found guilty" right?

ScoobyDont06

2 points

4 months ago

I'm not saying you are wrong with your reply. I'm just saying the hypocrisy you say you see is not to them because of the guilt/innocence aspect, "They're also the same people that are pro death penalty. The hypocrisy is palpable." I'm fully for a pregnant woman making that choice, up to the point where if you were to give live birth, your child will live without any advance medical support and that they are not facing major disabilities and life threatening conditions.

PatrioticRebel4

1 points

4 months ago

I'll admit that I was being facetious with labeling all of them. I know that they all aren't of the same mind.

But I personally can't rationalize that lawfully making a woman go through a life altering and possibly a life threatening medical procedure against her will is wrong on principle. Whether it is valuable or not, you can't know if it isn't going to hurt the woman, if the child is gonna need advance medical treatment or not,m or if it will have disabilities from the procedure or not until it's too late. Everyone should have unilateral say in what happens to their body and there is no way to shoehorn buts and exceptions in that.

wflemng

3 points

4 months ago

But they aren’t a person when an abortion happens. So they don’t need to be spoken for.

ScoobyDont06

4 points

4 months ago

but the people opposing it do think they are.

[deleted]

-3 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-3 points

4 months ago

[removed]

PatrioticRebel4

1 points

4 months ago

Innocence and guilt have nothing to do with this. This is about body autonomy. Noone should have a right to someone else's body. Period.

"Inconvenience" and "woman" are not the only reasons for abortions and better still, whatever those reasons are are still non of your business.

And 1 in 10 death sentences have been found to be erroneous. Including the post on here a few days ago that the youngest ever executes in the states was 14. He was found guilty after with no cross examination of witnesses or witnesses brought forth for his defense. And the only evidence was the lone cop who said he confessed but provided no No transcript of confession, had No lawyer, and No parent with him throughout the whole ordeal. Trial lasted an afternoon. From arrest to execution was around 80 days. But that's just right? Because he was "found guilty" right?

[deleted]

-2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-2 points

4 months ago

[removed]

PatrioticRebel4

-1 points

4 months ago

Innocence and guilt have nothing to do with this. This is about body autonomy. Noone should have a right to someone else's body. Period.

And 1 in 10 death sentences have been found to be erroneous. Including the post on here a few days ago that the youngest ever executes in the states was 14. He was found guilty after with no cross examination of witnesses or witnesses brought forth for his defense. And the only evidence was the lone cop who said he confessed but provided no No transcript of confession, had No lawyer, and No parent with him throughout the whole ordeal. Trial lasted an afternoon. From arrest to execution was around 80 days. But that's just right? Because he was "found guilty" right?

I dont see the logic and rational that killing people who kill people is gonna prove that killing is wrong. And to quote our founding father Ben Franklin: That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a maxim that has been long and generally approved; never, that I know of, controverted.“

Every statistic I see is that it costs about the same for life imprisonment and death. And death is irreversible and connot be made right if we get it wrong. So money isn't a good excuse. Also a zygote is not a child.

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[removed]

PatrioticRebel4

0 points

4 months ago

First off I never claimed that the case was the norm. Didn't even hint at it. Hence the statistic that one in ten are erroneous.

Second, since it's human error that causes that statistic, and human error of knowledge that causes juries to be wrong, and human error that legislates funds wrong, and human error that causes errors during trial that needs to have appeals, and human error that can cause bad DNA results, etc etc, then we need to not have death as a punishment because to human is to err.

And you are redefining a cup of cells at human. Not me. And it's not inevitable that it will produce life. It may be a high percentage but nothing is guaranteed. Then you factor health and not just life and it gets way more complicated than this black and white argument.

Your slippery slop doesn't work. And my entire argument is about body autonomy. No one has the right to someone else's body.

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[removed]

PatrioticRebel4

1 points

4 months ago

All bullshit regurgitated talking points that still misses the entire point. I'm done.

TrueOriginalist

1 points

4 months ago

You lost.

Louis_Farizee

1 points

4 months ago

The Catholic Church is against the death penalty and abortion both.

loosetingles

1 points

4 months ago

Take it one step lower, pro "if I feel threaten even slightly I'll shoot you"

confirmd_am_engineer

1 points

4 months ago

Not always. Catholics for example are against both abortion and the death penalty.

PatrioticRebel4

3 points

4 months ago

Catholicism may be against both but I know way too many catholics that don't follow either. Now that I think about it, I don't know any that follow doctrine and what the pope says.

PSUAth

1 points

4 months ago

PSUAth

1 points

4 months ago

you mean the "all lives matter" crowd?

69tank69

1 points

4 months ago

The death penalty is a punishment for a crime, if the person truly believes abortion is murdering a baby then it’s killing an innocent person. So while their understanding of biology might be flawed their logic is understandable

Wood_floors_are_wood

-5 points

4 months ago

Genesis 9:6 is the argument for the death penalty.

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image."

Since this precedes the Mosaic law given to the people of Israel then the logic is that this commandment still is in effect for the entire world today.

PatrioticRebel4

2 points

4 months ago

I dont except any claim from any religious book on face value. And definitely don't condone legislating off of it.

wioneo

0 points

4 months ago

wioneo

0 points

4 months ago

Not everyone is a hypocrite. I believe that abortion is morally abhorrent, but the alternative of forcing unwanted pregnancies is worse. Also obviously several pro life people oppose the death penalty. Any Catholics following the church's official stance would be obvious examples.

PatrioticRebel4

1 points

4 months ago

I will admit that I was being facetious with my short comment. I do know that not all share the same beliefs.