pro-life trans men? no way. i'm glad you realize trans men exist (and so do non-binary people with vaginas), but they know that forcing a fellow trans person to carry a pregnancy to term is a special kind of evil. but yeah if you want to decrease the number of abortions, then trans people should get gender-neutral pregnancy care.
Why Do You Say All Rights Are Equal When You Know Otherwise?
Children have never had equal rights with adults. Capacity refers to the ability to exercise a given right and is closely associated with age. Capacity is gained and lost on a continuum that begins at conception, maximizes at the age of majority, declines with old age and senility, and ultimately ends at death.
Lack of capacity is one of the few legitimate reasons to deny someone's rights. All societies throughout history have acknowledged that children have fewer and weaker rights than adults based on their lack of capacity. And unborn children have the fewest and weakest rights of all. There is no reason to assume that an unborn child's right to life is an exception to this principle.
What you are really saying but fail to clarify, is that all rights are equal in the absence of any justification otherwise. Then you are assuming but fail to articulate why there is no justification to deny an unborn child's right to life.
Abortion is justified for two closely interrelated reasons. 1) The unborn child's inferior right to life and 2) the size and nature of the burdens that an carrying an unborn child places on the mother. If the unborn child's right to life was more advanced, or if the burdens of carrying an unborn child were minimal (or could be delegated), then abortion would harder to justify. But none of these are the case.
Society at large has acknowledged this situation`by its unwillingness to treat abortion anything like to (criminal) murder as suggested by the pro life community.
Abortion is not murder. Most choice advocates will draw the line at viability, which is roughly 24 weeks. Before that time the embryo or fetus needs the mother's bodily functions to support it - thus it is totally unable to survive without that mother. Withholding that support is not equivalent to killing someone, just like withdrawing life support for a person on a ventilator or other system is not murder. The substantive difference is that, in order to remove life support from the fetus/embryo it is necessary to detach it from the life support "machine" which in this case is the mother, in the case of a born person it simply means unplugging a cable or tube. I am not making light of either of these situations, but they seem to at least be somewhat analogous to each other.
That is a great question! I definitely think those situations are somewhat analogous, and I certainly don't think that withdrawing life support is equivalent to murder. I agree with the one substantive difference that you pointed out (that the mother is the one supporting the fetus rather than a machine), but I think there is a second substantive difference too: someone on life support is dying from a disease. When I remove them from life support, I didn't kill them - the disease did. I was artificially keeping them alive, like choosing to "help" them. By removing them from life support, I am making them no worse off than they would be "naturally" right now since their body is dying. In pregnancy, however, the fetus is completely healthy. Underdeveloped, yes, but healthy. Abortion would be more analogous to removing an infant from it's crib and dropping it into the ocean. The infant is underdeveloped, too underdeveloped to swim. But you can't say "I didn't kill the infant; the new ocean environment did!" Deliberately putting an infant in an environment where it can't survive is still killing the infant. Removing a fetus from the mother's womb is literally death by suffocation due to the fetus' underdeveloped lungs; it's like removing the infant from the crib and it dying by suffocation in the ocean due to it's underdeveloped swimming ability. I don't think that we always have an obligation to help other people, like via life support or donating my kidney to them. Those people are dying, and I don't have an obligation to make them better off than their "natural" state. But I do think that we always have an obligation to not kill other people. We can't make them worse off than their "natural" state by placing the infant in the ocean or the fetus out in the air. We have a lot more material answering your question in this video: https://youtu.be/YmBrUcpOxDw
The ACLU has finally acknowledged that the fundamental right to bodily autonomy is not absolute and doesn't include the right to inflict harm on others. Very interesting!
Well ok so pro choice is a choice but countries like the UK and Europe and not non American countries are pro life but only when the mother or the Child is in danger rape incest case and surprisingly, Donald trumps agrees with that. Also In non American countries there are men and women and the discussion is shared so I guess it is not mysogynistic but still problematic. Also Manny more than 130 counties agrees that with 680,000 or more abortion a year Manny useless America is on a watchlist and should try to reduce it's abortion rate and stop blaming sexism. You know I agree that other countries should let Americans to abort but I also want Americans to stop saying It is mysogynistic to hate abortion because you are forbidding an opinion without a good eccuse not every woman is pro choice and if a blm or Feminist say it is bad to like it because It is offencive you will make people angry and they will go again your opinion for no reason because you made them angry.
I am pro choice because after all the problem is people saying it is mysogynistic for no reason like no sensible vegan will say that even babies can't drink cow milk when they need it desperately. Just like even if You have a pregnancy problem and need to go to Mexico or the nextdoor state trump agrees if in rape or when a woman life us in danger then he agrees that abortion is acceptable. Also people said it was mysogynistic to trump rather saying women life and rape victims are at steak plus poor people and that the reason because he might agrees because traveling 100 miles to survive is kinda long. If peta won Alabama texas and 5 other states and they say they are going to regularte how we kill animal in slauterhouse and also milk exept for pregnant babies but they forgot to put the law and you are angry about It you can either say that babies lives are at steak and they should do the exception for that or say, that anyone who does not want to eat meat or products is a crazy war criminal and is biggoted and has got to go to a mental hospital even while ignoring that contries like India don't eat Manny meats but are not idiot just like Manny pro life people in Europe are not mysogynistic feminist and women.
I'm in the UK and that's not true. We are Pro choice here. Unless you're Catholic and in Ireland. A woman's body is Hers. I'm not Pro abortion - but no one should be told what they do to their body.
"If I did not think that abortion is an act of lethal violence against an innocent person with the same value as you or I, I would very much sympathize with the exception for abortion after rape."
This is the problem; it is based on your own personal opinion not on facts. If all lives are intrinsically sacred, why make the distinction between whether that life is "innocent" or not?
"And other than an act of self-defense, I do not believe violence against people can be justified."
You do know that child pregnancy can be fatal, right?
"My view is that a human embryo right at fertilization is just as valuable a human person as you and me."
So? Not everyone shares the same view. You think that the life of a zygote is more valuable than a criminal; to the contrary, I think the life of a criminal is more valuable than any zygote. If I had to choose between the life of a criminal and 1000 frozen embryos, I would choose the criminal because to me that person is more human than any zygote or embryo.
Every public policy, from the corporate tax rate all the way down to laws against rape and murder, involves some form of value judgement. The facts are what they are, but we ultimately decide what to do with them. So it comes down to which view is more reasonable - whether all humans should have an equal right to life, or whether only some should. The "innocent" distinction is raised because many people think there's a serious moral difference between killing someone that's done nothing wrong and killing someone after he's been convicted of a heinous crime in a fair trial by a jury of his peers (just as other fundamental rights can be removed from criminals after due process). It doesn't endorse this view, any more than "black lives matter" implies people of other races don't matter.
Child pregnancy can indeed be fatal (as can adult pregnancy). So I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that every one of the pro-life laws passed in 2019-2021 included an exception for abortions necessary to save the mother's life.
Nope. Not one of your arguments holds true. For one, even if a fetus were innocent, the right to exercise one's bodily autonomy in choosing whether to have an abortion or to remain pregnant isn't negated by that scenario. You don't have to look any farther than the woman killed by her son-in-law while he was ostensibly sleepwalking. Her son-in-law was therefore just as innocent as a fetus would be, by the logic in the foregoing. Further to that, the woman would then not have the option to defend herself with lethal force. She absolutely did. For two, Pro-choice advocates often provide more support to those choosing to remain pregnant than not. That's how many of these memes came about. Finally, my country where abortion is decriminalized has a lower abortion rate than where it is not.
That argument assumes the unborn is an aggressor, like someone that drops a heavy object on you out of a tall building. But the fetus has more in common with someone being thrown out of a tall building (who would be the victim of an aggressor, not an aggressor herself - innocent or otherwise). Only aggressors can be killed in self-defence. It also assumes the pregnancy is life-threatening, which is only the case in very rare situations.
The fact that some abortion advocates provide support to people that choose not to have abortions isn't a reason to smear the pro-life movement (which pregnancy resource centres are at the centre of) or everyone that opposes abortion on demand. They go out of their way to help women giving birth under difficult circumstances, often at great personal sacrifice. Some countries having abortion on demand as well as low abortion rates doesn't change the fact that abortion is an unjust act of violence against an innocent person, or that study after study have shown that making abortion illegal or harder to get does reduce the abortion rate.
https://blog.secularprolife.org/2018/07/more-evidence-that-abortion.html
You’re disgusting. All your points are laughable. People not having control over their own bodies, can’t make their own decisions for themselves - even if you disagree with it, abortion should NOT be banned ever. There are women who will literally die from giving birth, or even getting pregnant. It isn’t a baby until it is born. There are so many medical reasons, and yes, rape should be considered, because it is traumatic and vile and terminating a pregnancy should NOT be shamed. People who have never gone through situations such as these will never understand, as they are at a place of privilege. Women deserve to make their OWN CHOICES with their life. Honestly disgusted with people like you.
Abortion in America falls disproportionately upon minorities. This is the very definition of eugenics, the false "science" which led to the Holocaust. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a giant supporter of eugenics and believed in the eradication of "lower classes" meaning minorities. In NYC in 2018 there were more abortions of black Americans than there were black live births. The KKK, founded by Democrats, couldn't have dreamed of such results.
Hey @@J_CAS:disqus here is how I would respond to this meme. Let me know if you have any questions! (Also I would categorize this in either the biology category or in a feminism category, which I didn't include in this article, in case you're wondering.) “I think this meme really misunderstands the pro-life position. Pro-life people don’t want to regulate sex, encourage or discourage reproduction, or anything of the sort. We simply believe that the human embryo is a person and should not be killed by abortion. This meme seems to be responding to a desire to reduce the number of pregnancies or something? That doesn’t even make sense. We don’t want the law controlling people’s sexual decisions or want the government forcing people to take sexual responsibility seriously (although you and I probably agree that sexual responsibility is important). My position is that we have a responsibility to protect innocent people from violence. Since I believe that abortion is an act of violence against an innocent person, I think we have a responsibility to step in. It has nothing to do with a desire to control people any more than my positions about other types of violence.”
Only regulating women? No, it will be illegal for any of those 100 pregnancies to be aborted. The children created by that man will be just as protected if he fathers 1 or 100. Is there some minimum number of murders which should not be "regulated"? As long as you only murder one person a year it isn't murder because Kermit Gosnell murdered so many every year?
"Rachel wants the pro-life movement to be known for its love....of deceptive advertising, pseudoscience and willingness to do anything in their efforts to promote and impose their agenda and religious superstitions on others" There....I fixed it for you. You are welcome
Under "Biology 101", you suggest "Here is a link to some helpful sources.", in the reasoned response. Do you happen to have a link to some resources that we could use? Thank you in advance :-)
Hey! Really good question, go back to that section and click on the word “link” because it actually is a hyperlink to our resource page for biology. We are changing the formatting to make that more obvious because I realize it doesn’t look like a link. Thanks so much for asking so we could fix the problem!
ESRB video game ratings are not legally binding. The Supreme Court ruled California’s law unconstitutional. And it’s doubtful that stores are really going to worry about who is buying T-rated games, it’s M-rated ones they’re worried about.
Funny story. I think I remember a pro-choice state legislator in Georgia introducing a requirement that men are responsible for child support during pregnancy and birth back when the heartbeat bill was up for debate. It was one of those troll amendments pro-choice legislators tend to introduce when they have no hope of successfully defeating a popular pro-life measure. But pro-lifers thought it was actually a good idea and incorporated it into the final version of the bill.
but yeah if you want to decrease the number of abortions, then trans people should get gender-neutral pregnancy care.
Children have never had equal rights with adults. Capacity refers to the ability to exercise a given right and is closely associated with age. Capacity is gained and lost on a continuum that begins at conception, maximizes at the age of majority, declines with old age and senility, and ultimately ends at death.
Lack of capacity is one of the few legitimate reasons to deny someone's rights. All societies throughout history have acknowledged that children have fewer and weaker rights than adults based on their lack of capacity. And unborn children have the fewest and weakest rights of all. There is no reason to assume that an unborn child's right to life is an exception to this principle.
What you are really saying but fail to clarify, is that all rights are equal in the absence of any justification otherwise. Then you are assuming but fail to articulate why there is no justification to deny an unborn child's right to life.
Abortion is justified for two closely interrelated reasons. 1) The unborn child's inferior right to life and 2) the size and nature of the burdens that an carrying an unborn child places on the mother. If the unborn child's right to life was more advanced, or if the burdens of carrying an unborn child were minimal (or could be delegated), then abortion would harder to justify. But none of these are the case.
Society at large has acknowledged this situation`by its unwillingness to treat abortion anything like to (criminal) murder as suggested by the pro life community.
https://vptt.org/abortion/the-reason-why-a-mother-is-justified-in-killing-her-unborn-child/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/opinion/covid-vaccine-mandates-civil-liberties.html
I am pro choice because after all the problem is people saying it is mysogynistic for no reason like no sensible vegan will say that even babies can't drink cow milk when they need it desperately. Just like even if You have a pregnancy problem and need to go to Mexico or the nextdoor state trump agrees if in rape or when a woman life us in danger then he agrees that abortion is acceptable. Also people said it was mysogynistic to trump rather saying women life and rape victims are at steak plus poor people and that the reason because he might agrees because traveling 100 miles to survive is kinda long. If peta won Alabama texas and 5 other states and they say they are going to regularte how we kill animal in slauterhouse and also milk exept for pregnant babies but they forgot to put the law and you are angry about It you can either say that babies lives are at steak and they should do the exception for that or say, that anyone who does not want to eat meat or products is a crazy war criminal and is biggoted and has got to go to a mental hospital even while ignoring that contries like India don't eat Manny meats but are not idiot just like Manny pro life people in Europe are not mysogynistic feminist and women.
This is the problem; it is based on your own personal opinion not on facts. If all lives are intrinsically sacred, why make the distinction between whether that life is "innocent" or not?
"And other than an act of self-defense, I do not believe violence against people can be justified."
You do know that child pregnancy can be fatal, right?
"My view is that a human embryo right at fertilization is just as valuable a human person as you and me."
So? Not everyone shares the same view. You think that the life of a zygote is more valuable than a criminal; to the contrary, I think the life of a criminal is more valuable than any zygote. If I had to choose between the life of a criminal and 1000 frozen embryos, I would choose the criminal because to me that person is more human than any zygote or embryo.
Child pregnancy can indeed be fatal (as can adult pregnancy). So I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that every one of the pro-life laws passed in 2019-2021 included an exception for abortions necessary to save the mother's life.
Utterly false, any pregnancy can unexpectedly cause life threatening complications, this is not rare at all.
https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/refuting-abortion-as-self-defense/
In NYC in 2018 there were more abortions of black Americans than there were black live births. The KKK, founded by Democrats, couldn't have dreamed of such results.
“I think this meme really misunderstands the pro-life position. Pro-life people don’t want to regulate sex, encourage or discourage reproduction, or anything of the sort. We simply believe that the human embryo is a person and should not be killed by abortion. This meme seems to be responding to a desire to reduce the number of pregnancies or something? That doesn’t even make sense. We don’t want the law controlling people’s sexual decisions or want the government forcing people to take sexual responsibility seriously (although you and I probably agree that sexual responsibility is important).
My position is that we have a responsibility to protect innocent people from violence. Since I believe that abortion is an act of violence against an innocent person, I think we have a responsibility to step in. It has nothing to do with a desire to control people any more than my positions about other types of violence.”
Is there some minimum number of murders which should not be "regulated"? As long as you only murder one person a year it isn't murder because Kermit Gosnell murdered so many every year?
There....I fixed it for you.
You are welcome
You are welcome