Pastor Barnhart explains right-wing anti-abortion politics.

Page 11 of 17 [ 265 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 17  Next

Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

11 May 2022, 6:49 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Also I don't see how risk to ones health is a stupid reason


I was not thinking of health emergencies. I was thinking of elective abortions (98-99.9% of abortions depending on the dataset) - that is abortions not performed for medical reasons, rape, incest or any of the other go-to extreme examples.

Sweetleaf wrote:
And well biology/science just doesn't support the sentient life starting at conception argument.


Nice try, but I didn't say sentient did I? It's the pro-abortion side that has to constantly redefine states of humanity which allows unwanted humans to be killed without guilt.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Also what have I said that is similar to arguments supporting any mass atrocities? my position is no one has the right to your body without consent. How has that argument been used for mass atrocities or are you referring to something else?


See above. Without wanting to Godwin the thread so early, there should be obvious parallels between classifying unborn children as parasites and a certain nasty regimes of the 20th century. Though I don't think you used that particular word, others in this thread have.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 May 2022, 8:36 pm

Mikah wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Also I don't see how risk to ones health is a stupid reason


I was not thinking of health emergencies. I was thinking of elective abortions (98-99.9% of abortions depending on the dataset) - that is abortions not performed for medical reasons, rape, incest or any of the other go-to extreme examples.

Sweetleaf wrote:
And well biology/science just doesn't support the sentient life starting at conception argument.


Nice try, but I didn't say sentient did I? It's the pro-abortion side that has to constantly redefine states of humanity which allows unwanted humans to be killed without guilt.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Also what have I said that is similar to arguments supporting any mass atrocities? my position is no one has the right to your body without consent. How has that argument been used for mass atrocities or are you referring to something else?


See above. Without wanting to Godwin the thread so early, there should be obvious parallels between classifying unborn children as parasites and a certain nasty regimes of the 20th century. Though I don't think you used that particular word, others in this thread have.


Maybe they should develop a way to remove unwanted embryos and fetuses in a way that doesn't kill it, and put it in an artificial womb. But until that technology exists abortion is really the only option in the case of unwanted pregnancy where the pregnant woman isn't willing to carry it to term.

Also, legislators in some states don't want to make an exception for incest or rape overturning roe vs wade would likely allow for this.

But also once again why should I be forced to have a baby if I get an accidental pregnancy, what so another person can born into the foster system where they can be abused and neglected? Regardless of how you face it pregnancy is a sacrifice and you should not have to make it if you don't want to. I know some of you will never agree and well it's your right. But banning abortion will also make it harder for women who want children to get abortions if things go wrong which could lead to their death, and if they already have kids that will leave them motherless.

Also what of the case of a mom who's already had 4 kids and gets pregnant a 5th time, she should also be forced to take it to term even if she doesn't have the means to take care of an additional child? It is not just childless people who seek abortions for unwanted pregnancy.


_________________
We won't go back.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

11 May 2022, 9:51 pm

Why do you keep beating the drum that banning abortions will mean the death of mothers when pregnancies turn life-threatening? I want to know which state has a trigger law that doesn’t allow for this.

I don’t mean to be crass, but surely a woman with 4 kids is aware of what causes that. And kids aren’t as expensive as people make them out to be. We have 4 kids. The only reason my wife isn’t as eager to go for #5 as she was only a few months ago is she’s over 40 and has had 2 miscarriages. That’s pretty intense for her, so she doesn’t want to be pregnant now.

But even if she did get pregnant, she wouldn’t have an abortion.

Our household income is in the neighborhood of $38k. I’m gonna try to get it up closer to $60k in the next year. As we are all getting older, our goals have somewhat changed. I’m much more confident with what I do for a living and have a lot to offer. I think being used to working a combined 4 jobs between us, only making $30k or less, and doing well with 3 kids has helped build us up and make us tough. You have options in life. It’s only a matter of choosing to pursue those options. Any time you adapt to having any number of children, adding one more is never that terrible of a stretch. If you don’t want to risk another baby or possibly risk destroying them, then don’t do stuff that gets you pregnant.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

11 May 2022, 10:03 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Why do you keep beating the drum that banning abortions will mean the death of mothers when pregnancies turn life-threatening? I want to know which state has a trigger law that doesn’t allow for this.



I would be staggered if this wasn't the case.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

11 May 2022, 10:11 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Have you heard of ectopic pregnancies where the fetus implants in the wrong place? The only treatment for that is abortion. If she is denied an abortion that is a death sentence....what does your morality say about that?



I would like "evidence" that it would happen.
It is inconceivable (pun intended) that a women would be left to die in such a situation.
It sounds like utter nonsense and I think you are hurting your argument, assuming you are incorrect.

Sorry to be so firm about my position, but as I said, something like you described is beyond *my* realm of reality. 8)



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

11 May 2022, 10:18 pm

Mikah wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:
Also, the only morals that say abortion is wrong are religious morals, and we are supposed to have separation of church and state.


Wrong. I don't use religious arguments and came to the anti-abortion side long before religion.


"Ethical" considerations Trump trump "religious" principles. 8)
Even progressives can be ethical, btw. :mrgreen:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

11 May 2022, 10:26 pm

Mikah wrote:
The heart of it is the right not to be killed for stupid or selfish reasons, a right hopefully applied to all humans, not just the unborn. Everything else flows from that.


Ethical considerations might have a greater moral coinage than simple "all life should be preserved" thinking.

Religious principles can be quite anti-intellectual since the premise can be a logical fallacy.
For some, life is not a blessing.
For some, life is unnecessary suffering with no purpose. 8)



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

11 May 2022, 10:51 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
why should I be forced to have a baby if I get an accidental pregnancy, what so another person can born into the foster system where they can be abused and neglected?


It's the lesser evil in both cases.

Pepe wrote:
Ethical considerations might have a greater moral coinage than simple "all life should be preserved" thinking.


Indeed, but "all life should be preserved" is not a position I take.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 May 2022, 11:33 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Why do you keep beating the drum that banning abortions will mean the death of mothers when pregnancies turn life-threatening? I want to know which state has a trigger law that doesn’t allow for this.

I don’t mean to be crass, but surely a woman with 4 kids is aware of what causes that. And kids aren’t as expensive as people make them out to be. We have 4 kids. The only reason my wife isn’t as eager to go for #5 as she was only a few months ago is she’s over 40 and has had 2 miscarriages. That’s pretty intense for her, so she doesn’t want to be pregnant now.

But even if she did get pregnant, she wouldn’t have an abortion.

Our household income is in the neighborhood of $38k. I’m gonna try to get it up closer to $60k in the next year. As we are all getting older, our goals have somewhat changed. I’m much more confident with what I do for a living and have a lot to offer. I think being used to working a combined 4 jobs between us, only making $30k or less, and doing well with 3 kids has helped build us up and make us tough. You have options in life. It’s only a matter of choosing to pursue those options. Any time you adapt to having any number of children, adding one more is never that terrible of a stretch. If you don’t want to risk another baby or possibly risk destroying them, then don’t do stuff that gets you pregnant.


Me and my boyfriends household income is enough to just afford an 1,100 $ apartment where either one of us being put out of work could mean we can't afford it. It's not just a child I cannot afford, we literally would not be able to financially afford me to go through a pregnancy even if we could give up the baby at the end. LIke paying our rent depends on me having a part time job, I cannot afford to take any more than a couple days off and it's a physical labor job with lifting and moving about and being exposed to cat piss and crap and dog crap. And apparently pregnant woman should stay away from cat crap, which is unavoidable at my job.

Also I am saying mothers to be who find out about complications that could cause a life threatening situation won't be allowed to have an abortion untill it becomes life or death because of archaic laws. Like a doctor will have to say 'well we can see these complications make the pregnancy very risky but we cannot terminate unless you are litterally about to die.' and then we may not decide on time to save your life...derp doo.


_________________
We won't go back.


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,472
Location: Houston, Texas

11 May 2022, 11:48 pm

I am praying for rioting and anarchy in every red state.

Though I would have done this even if Roe was upheld. Red states and countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia need total chaos more than anything.


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

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 39
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

12 May 2022, 12:42 am

Tim_Tex wrote:
I am praying for rioting and anarchy in every red state.

Though I would have done this even if Roe was upheld. Red states and countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia need total chaos more than anything.


Why?



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas

12 May 2022, 12:47 am

ironpony wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
I am praying for rioting and anarchy in every red state.

Though I would have done this even if Roe was upheld. Red states and countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia need total chaos more than anything.


Why?

because 1] the moral busybodies richly deserve blowback, and 2]when they are being torn apart from within then they can't make as much trouble for the rest of us saner states.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 39
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

12 May 2022, 12:55 am

Oh I see. I guess I just believe that courts and cultures should rule how they want and I always tell other cultures 'you do you' sort of thing. It just seems like American culture never believes in the idea that the people have spoken, or never believe in court verdicts. Like when there were protests and riots to try to force a certain verdict for Derek Chauvin or Kyle Rittenhouse, for example. Why can't people in the courts just put in their votes, and whatever people vote, is whatever people vote, and the people have spoken? Just go home and sleep nice, in if that's what people want, that's what they want, unless that's not good enough?



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas

12 May 2022, 1:04 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:

I always thought ectopics were, or could be, treated in ER's


Yes, they have to remove the fetus before it kills the pregnant woman. Also sometimes when women miscarry their body won't expell the fetus and they need an abortion...or they risk death from a dead fetus stuck inside of them.

NOT in ERs, they went straight up to my operating room when they came to the hospital.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

12 May 2022, 1:46 am

Mikah wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Ethical considerations might have a greater moral coinage than simple "all life should be preserved" thinking.


Indeed, but "all life should be preserved" is not a position I take.

Does "The Church" take that position?



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,512
Location: Over there

12 May 2022, 6:16 am

Mikah wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
It seems you're arguing that because she can do that, she should therefore be barred from actively preventing it.

I'm answering a direct question about the perceived unfairness of a law - yes it is unfair, due to differences between the sexes - but morality can and should trump any unfairness or disproportionate impact of a law.
No disproportionate or unfair law should be allowed to stand, period, and wrapping it in some moral argument doesn't change that inequity - it just makes it more noxious.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.