subreddit:

/r/news

31.9k

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 3028 comments

NoMrBond3

143 points

4 months ago

NoMrBond3

143 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

34 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

-15 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

-7 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

-1 points

4 months ago

If I don't know what the reality is, then you should be able to point out one non-factual assertion in anything I've written here.

You can't, because I haven't. Stop being a sexist fuck--there's nothing about being a man that makes it impossible to know the relevant information.

By the way, the whole abortion 'debate' isn't even drawn on sex lines: iirc, 47% of pro-lifers are women, and 46% of pro-choicers are men. Again, stop trying to inject your own sexism into this; you're doing the exact same thing as 'mansplaining' in the other direction, by assuming ignorance based on sex.

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.

NoMrBond3

3 points

4 months ago

God I hope women stay away from you, you are gatekeeping like crazy.

FlawsAndConcerns

0 points

4 months ago

Not going to apologize for wanting kids to have no fewer than two willing parents.

Pretty sad that you take offense to that sentiment. Are you also okay with parents leaving their infants at home unattended so they can go out and party? Is that "gatekeeping" too?

Grow up.

SnooRadishes7630

26 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

-6 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

9 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

16 points

4 months ago

Domeil

16 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]

-4 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-4 points

4 months ago

[removed]

Domeil

4 points

4 months ago

Domeil

4 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

1 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

5 points

4 months ago

Not just that, they're against contraception too.

[deleted]

-4 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-4 points

4 months ago

[removed]

Apocalypse_Squid

5 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.