Pastor Barnhart explains right-wing anti-abortion politics.

Page 4 of 17 [ 265 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 17  Next

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,501
Location: Stendec

06 May 2022, 9:14 am

ironpony wrote:
magz wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Those points makes sense. What about having your eggs frozen instead of getting the abortion? That way, your egg is removed even though it's fertilized in this case, but it doesn't count as an abortion in the eyes of the law since it was getting one's eggs frozen?
I don't think there's technology for it.  Normally, eggs for freezing come from ovaries where it's easy to look for them.  AFAIK, a new zygote is buried under thick tissue in some random part of uterus. You can't find it until it's quite a formed fetus. We can't transplant formed fetuses (if we could, it would probably be a relatively popular alternative to abortion).
But has the government ever tried exploring the technology or do research on it ever, as I assume it would resolve the whole abortion issue.
The Government is already too involved.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 4,997
Location: canada

06 May 2022, 9:17 am

Perhaps but is anyone else besides the government willing to explore technology like that, or even perform abortions?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,501
Location: Stendec

06 May 2022, 9:25 am

ironpony wrote:
Perhaps but is anyone else besides the government willing to explore technology like that, or even perform abortions?
Sure.  Universities, commercial research, private research . . . just keep the Government out of women's wombs.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 4,997
Location: canada

06 May 2022, 9:38 am

But if people want the government out of women's wombs, doesn't abortion count as the government going in?



Fireblossom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,321

06 May 2022, 10:06 am

Let's not forget that even if a woman survives the pregnancy and childbirth and gives the baby away for adoption, she could still have painful complications from them, ones that could last the rest of her life and could cost a lot to treat. Do the anti-choice people ever discuss funding the treatment of the women who get permanent complications because of something they were forced to do by the law?

slam_thunderhide wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
slam_thunderhide wrote:
I am ambivalent about the subject of abortion, but I do think it's interesting how many liberal pet causes seem to revolve around sterility, whether it's abortion, gay marriage, transgenderism, encouraging careers over families, or having vasectomies to tackle climate change.

Does the average liberal ever stop and think about why this is?


Huh, I've never thought about that, but now that I do, I think it might actually be pretty simple: in the times when the rules against gay marriage, abortion, women having careers etc. were created, those in power needed to stay in power by having lots of loyal subjects. Gay marriage = no children being born from that marriage (before fertility treatments) = no new subjects = no good. Abortion = prevents the birth of one new subject = no good. Women working outside the house = women having less time to take care of kids = women will likely have fewer kids = fewer new subjects = no good. In other words, those in power have controlled people's family planning for their own gain, but now society is fed up with it and people want to decide about their own bodies. Why these people tend to pile up on the left, that I'm not so sure of.


This sounds like a just-so story. I could just as easily construct a just-so story making the opposite argument, such as: "Powerful rulers want to keep their subject populations low, because the larger their subject populations are the more potential rebels there are who might depose them". As an example to support my just-so story, I could point to the historical phenomena of the court eunuchs, where some of a ruler's most loyal servants would be men who'd had their balls cut off.


Fair. I did say that I thought it could be the case, not that it was. What you say makes sense too, especially in places that have very limited resources and are hard to get in to so you don't need a large army to keep people away.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 34
Posts: 2,538
Location: England

06 May 2022, 1:09 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
If a person does not want a baby they will see it as a parasite, even if they acknowledge its a could be life and an abortion will kill it.


Yeah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization


_________________
Though here at journey's end I lie
in darkness buried deep,
beyond all towers strong and high,
beyond all mountains steep,
above all shadows rides the Sun
and Stars for ever dwell:
I will not say the Day is done,
nor bid the Stars farewell.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,501
Location: Stendec

06 May 2022, 1:28 pm

ironpony wrote:
But if people want the government out of women's wombs, doesn't abortion count as the government going in?
From which back pocket did you pull that little falsehood?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 33,385
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 May 2022, 1:34 pm

Mikah wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
If a person does not want a baby they will see it as a parasite, even if they acknowledge its a could be life and an abortion will kill it.


Yeah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization


Are you willing to let an organism feed off of you and grow inside of you? There is no way around that is what a growing fetus does, and that is literally what a parasite is. This is just scientific language, I still acknowledge the parasite in this case is human but that still doesn't give it the right to live off of someone else's body if that person doesn't want it to.

Like kudos to mothers who are willing to take the risk and carry a baby to term and give birth...but not all women want to do that and we shouldn't have to. Also a lot of mothers have abortions to prevent more children than they already have....they already had babies and don't want anymore. Or maybe they would like more children but had a difficult child-birth that caused problems that might make an additional pregnancy more dangerous.

My sisters friend could have died in childbirth, there were no complications till she was in labor. And my sister said her partner for sure on no uncertain terms said if it came to it he wanted her more than the baby as he hadn't even met the baby. It turned out ok and the baby was fine but for sure if it came down to the baby or her he was clearly more concerned about her. But point is during labor things started to go wrong so a late term abortion may have been needed to save her life...it didn't come to that but it could have. Would you call her a murderer if that late term abortion had ended up needing to be preformed? Or would you acknowledge she was just saving her own life?


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 33,385
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 May 2022, 1:57 pm

ironpony wrote:
Well I am a guy so it's harder for me to understand that maybe we all should take responsibility if a pregnancy happens, and just have the baby since it's our faults, but that's okay?


Well you can't get pregnant, you never have to consider the risks of pregnancy because you cannot get pregnant. The truth is humans are kind of crappy at giving birth so unfortunately it is still possible to die in childbirth which is a big reason I don't think anyone should be forced to go through with it.

Other than that though it takes 9 months, almost a year...not every women can just take time off work to have a baby. Like me and my boyfriend live kind of pay check to pay check though we have a little savings. Like even if I could give up the baby after giving birth and not have to provide for them I can't even afford the 9 months it would take to grow a baby and give birth to it. Plus I just really don't want to risk the potential health risks including death when I don't even want a child to begin with and even pregnancies that go well aren't easy.


_________________
We won't go back.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,961
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

06 May 2022, 3:16 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well I am a guy so it's harder for me to understand that maybe we all should take responsibility if a pregnancy happens, and just have the baby since it's our faults, but that's okay?


Well you can't get pregnant, you never have to consider the risks of pregnancy because you cannot get pregnant.

The destruction of human life is a concern for all human beings, and that has nothing to do with which side of the womb the baby is on.

How about this: You're not black, you never have to consider the rights of black people because you aren't black.

Or...

You're not straight, you never have to consider the impact of baking cakes because you aren't straight.

ANYBODY can play the role of victim. I prefer to focus on actual victims, those people whose lives are genuinely at risk. When you start talking about putting lives in danger or actions that affect more than one person, suddenly it becomes everyone's business.

I would NEVER say that killing a baby isn't justified when it comes down to a choice of saving the mother or saving the baby. Thing is, though, that's an increasingly rare thing. When my oldest daughter was born, both she and her mother nearly died. Had we lived in a 3rd world country, at best my wife would have survived, and we won't talk about the barbaric emergency procedure that would have been used to save my wife. But in our case, the doctors saved both and everything is fine.

Over the years I've gained a new respect for the welfare system. I still believe it is largely abused. But even for us having a baby got us a sizable tax refund, student loan relief, child tax credit, and other breaks. No insurance? No problem. For low income or no income mothers, you can file for Medicaid as soon as you know you're pregnant. It's amazing how much support the government gives families. You just have to know where to look.

If you don't want children, that's your business. All I'm saying it's not as difficult or as dangerous as you might think.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,071
Location: Reading, England

06 May 2022, 5:32 pm

slam_thunderhide wrote:

Speak for yourself.

Life is about the propagation of genetic information. That is ultimately the source for why (most) individuals value their continued existence. This is true regardless of the fact that some people choose not to have children, just as it's true regardless of the fact that some people choose to commit suicide. And it's true regardless of whether people are conscious of it or not. And most people are dimly conscious of it in any case. For example-

Most people view genocide as a 'special case' of mass murder because they are aware on some level of the possibility of distinctive genetic information being lost to the world.

I don't think people view genocide as worse than mass murder because they're concerned about loss of genetic diversity. I think our dislike of genocide is basically borne out of the horrors of the Holocaust. We also have a revulsion towards the hatred that inspires people to kill based on race, although again this largely comes out of the Holocaust and to a lesser extent the Armenian genocide. Same reason why terrorism became a much more salient issue after 9/11.

Quote:
Many societies that allow humans to hunt animals still try to restrict humans from hunting endangered animals, again because of concerns about distinctive genetic information being lost.

Humans have hunted a large number of species to extinction, and conservation laws are relatively modern inventions. As someone with a background in conversation biology, arguments about genetic diversity appeal to biologists and not much more than that. People will donate money to preserve charismatic animals like pandas and elephants, not so much to preserve newts or sparrows. Some people might agree that given the choice between letting some randomly selected people die and letting elephants go extinct, they would choose to save the elephants, but I don't think this is because we believe individual elephants should have more rights than people, we simply don't want a world with no elephants in it.

Quote:
When someone is facing an early death, they will feel fear and/or sadness for the ending of their own life, but they will often feel sadness for the children they will never get to have, or fear for the fate of the children they leave behind.

I don't think being sad about your children growing up without a parent is particular evidence that we view genetics as more worthy of preservation than people. For one thing, I'm sure many people feel that way towards people who they aren't closely related to - adopted children, step children, godchildren, even children who are legally theirs but actually had a different father, or are the result of an IVF mix-up.

Similarly, being sad about experiences you won't get to have isn't limited to children, but also to travel, hobbies, professional success, you name it.
Quote:
Also, it's not uncommon in times of danger for people to sacrifice their lives for the lives of their children or their 'tribe'. And most people on some level understand why this is so.

Yes, people will sacrifice themselves for others and there are evolutionary mechanisms that explain it. I don't think that leads to "and so we should force people to carry embryos they don't want to".

Quote:
Frankly, the fact that none of this seems to impact on your thinking says a lot to me about your value system.

Bit of an assumption. To be honest I don't place a huge amount of weight on gut feelings, although on a metaethical level I'm not sure there's a huge amount of difference between gut feelings and reasoned beliefs (we tend to come up with reasoning that supports our beliefs). But on a simple cognitive level, our feelings are often unhelpful because they're born out of an evolutionary context that doesn't really apply. The fight or flight response is an obvious example. If I feel something, I think it's healthier to examine that feeling and consider whether it is rational, rather than accepting that it is a deep moral truth.



old_comedywriter
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 460
Location: Somewhere west of where you are

06 May 2022, 5:41 pm

It's a hidden agenda for their religion to take control of the USA and dictate THEIR policy to everyone.

Next it will be forced/coerced/mandatory Christian prayer in public schools.

"One nation under God" will become "We do EVERYTHING PUBLIC in JESUS'S name, Amen."

So basically, what it comes down to is an attack on the same Constitution that "conservatives" claim to defend.


_________________
It ain't easy being me, but someone's gotta do it.


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,713
Location: Abbottistan

06 May 2022, 6:43 pm

old_comedywriter wrote:
It's a hidden agenda for their religion to take control of the USA and dictate THEIR policy to everyone.

Next it will be forced/coerced/mandatory Christian prayer in public schools.

"One nation under God" will become "We do EVERYTHING PUBLIC in JESUS'S name, Amen."

So basically, what it comes down to is an attack on the same Constitution that "conservatives" claim to defend.


Either banning religion or having anarchy are our only hope.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 4,997
Location: canada

06 May 2022, 10:59 pm

Well it seems to me that maybe people are perhaps making too big a deal about this abortion thing because with condoms and birth control pills, the chances of getting pregant are quite small, especially if the guy chooses not to ejaculate inside the woman, and still wearing the condom?



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,707
Location: Australia

06 May 2022, 11:03 pm

Fnord wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well I just don't understand . . .
[color=black]. . . because you are a man.


Bad example. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Read my lips:-I am not a fan of the orange man.-I would never vote for the Republican party given the chance.-I am interested in being objective and rational.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,707
Location: Australia

06 May 2022, 11:16 pm

Fnord wrote:
ironpony wrote:
But if people want the government out of women's wombs, doesn't abortion count as the government going in?
which back pocket did you pull that little falsehood?[/color]


I think ironpony means, that if abortions were legalised, action to implement these laws would mean government involvement. (Assuming they haven't been already)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Read my lips:-I am not a fan of the orange man.-I would never vote for the Republican party given the chance.-I am interested in being objective and rational.