Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

i need to ask something. (Highly-controversial topic. Please be patient with me)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Much of my own views have been echoed by others. I want to live in a world where abortions don't happen. But I sure don't want to live in a world where they're made illegal/inaccessible to achieve that goal.

    I am a very firm supporter of mandatory sex education, and free birth control for any that want it, not just because of the abortion angle but because repeated studies have shown that planning parenthood rather than it being a whoops situation has a positive impact not only on the children that are born but on the parents. It's a cheap price for greater stability and economic gains for a country.

    More importantly, I've read and researched enough of what USED to happen in the western cultures. Women taking crazy risks, abusing themselves, poisoning themselves, all in an effort to get the fetus to abort because it would ruin their lives. Or back when it was a family scale disaster, women who would get disappeared for a year or so and quickly married off when they come back. Or arranging for "treatment" of "a female disorder" by a hysterectomy. There have been more than a few suicides over becoming pregnant.

    Making it illegal... is actively counterproductive. Not only is it punishing someone that actively feels they have no alternative... think about it, would you trust a random guy who washed out of medical school to perform a back-street procedure on you if you thought there was a reasonable choice? Not only that, but it drives home the concept that sex by virtue of pregnancy is bad/evil/wrong unless you're prepared to have a baby. So yay shaming people for stuff they're biologically driven to do anyway.


    Odd_Canuck is not a topical medication or food product and is not to be taken internally or seriously.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Nicolas Milioni View Post
      Okay,i need to vent a bit and if any of you guys could answer that'd be fine. So, all cards on the table. I'm anti-abortion. i tried not to be but the truth is. When i see an abortion,i see a little kind being thrown in thrash-bin. I see . My country,Brazil, had some reviews our laws this week. it was bad,but one law i do agree with is the Criminizalition of abortion unless the pregnancy directs threatens the woman's life. It is hard for me seeing so many people railing against politicians who voted for that. Especially because those people didnt attack politicians who did worse. And it's hard for me to understand something about pro-choice people. Why do you think people who are against abortion are just trying to hurt women? every single pro-choice argument i've sen always says "you don't care about women,You just want to hurt women". And that's just isn't the reality. Based on my experiences almost all pro-life people are coming from the same idea. That a fetus is a human being, or at the very least will become a human being and that we shouldn't let people just thrown them away like that. I'm still trying to understand pro-choice to empathize with them. that's why i'm asking this here,please be patient with.

      Why is there a belief that pro-life people about trying to hurt woman and not about saving lifes, or at the very least things that will be alive after some months?
      I'm very prochoice, I support state funded abortions. That being said I don't believe antiabortion people are mysgonists, but ignorant social conservatives.

      Look for the first two trimesters its a glorified clump of cells. You're letting your imagination get the best of you. They are not people, the change to fetus to child begins in the third trimester and ends with birth.

      And third trimester abortions are relatively rare and usually do to extreme circumstances.

      Do you get bent over the lose of potential life every time you masturbate, of course not.

      You just have an over active imagination is all.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Nicolas Milioni View Post

        Why is there a belief that pro-life people about trying to hurt woman and not about saving lifes, or at the very least things that will be alive after some months?
        ​Probably because in the US the same people that are pro-life tend not to support the idea of helping the parent(s) after the child is born (via tax supported government assistance) and in fact vilify those parents for relying on any taxpayer funded assistance they can get. You know, the people that complain about all the tax dollars that go to welfare, even though that amount is a miniscule amount of the annual federal budget. Oddly enough they also tend to support the death penalty while talking about the sanctity of life. Let's see those same people start adopting kids with expensive medical conditions, kids who aren't babies/toddlers, or kids who aren't the same race and I'll start to change my opinion of them. It's been my experience that these same people are the ones that don't want the government intruding into their lives and decisions but have no problem forcing their opinions and religious beliefs on others by seeking to legislate those beliefs. Then you have the issue of those same people being against the idea of gay couples adopting, they'd rather see a child live as a ward of the state than have parents that don't fit their idea of what a real family should look like. It's just one set of hypocritical views after another IMO.
        Last edited by Darksider; 12-02-2016, 08:33 AM.


        Onyx Path Forum Administrator
        Posts in this color are moderator posts
        Posts in this color mean a Great Old One has driven me mad.
        Forum Terms of Use
        the Contact Us link.

        Comment


        • #34
          Just the fact of being Pro-death penalty while saying they are Pro-life is a sick joke that makes imposible to sympatize with their claims.


          I'm So Meta Even This Acronym

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
            So I come at the pro-choice side from a considerably different direction than most people. Pro-choice for me is not just a mater of bodily autonomy (though I do consider that important) but defending the right to have different moral considerations on abortion and choose according to those different beliefs.
            It's important to note, BTW, that Roe v. Wade, the U.S. court case that legalized abortion nationwide was not controversial when it was made. The SCOTUS of the time had 3 justices regarded as Conservative, 3 regarded as Liberal, and 3 regarded as Moderate. The Majority opinion was written by a Conservative and the Dissenting opinion was written by a Liberal. Both Dissenters agreed that abortion should be legal but disagreed that there was a Constitutional argument for it.

            Abortion only became a controversial issue (in the US) in the 80s when Conservatives needed a wedge issue to Get Out The Vote. That is when the notion that personhood began at conception was invented.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonath...b_2072716.html

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Darksider View Post
              ​Probably because in the US the same people that are pro-life tend not to support the idea of helping the parent(s) after the child is born (via tax supported government assistance) and in fact vilify those parents for relying on any taxpayer funded assistance they can get. You know, the people that complain about all the tax dollars that go to welfare, even though that amount is a miniscule amount of the annual federal budget. Oddly enough they also tend to support the death penalty while talking about the sanctity of life. Let's see those same people start adopting kids with expensive medical conditions, kids who aren't babies/toddlers, or kids who aren't the same race and I'll start to change my opinion of them. It's been my experience that these same people are the ones that don't want the government intruding into their lives and decisions but have no problem forcing their opinions and religious beliefs on others by seeking to legislate those beliefs. Then you have the issue of those same people being against the idea of gay couples adopting, they'd rather see a child live as a ward of the state than have parents that don't fit their idea of what a real family should look like. It's just one set of hypocritical views after another IMO.
              This is rather a bit of tarring everyone with the same brush I think. Not all the pro-life people I know support the death penalty, but a very vocal minority do. Likewise not all the people that are pro-life that I've encountered are opposed to social support programmes. Again, the very vocal ones stand out and it's easy to assume the ones you hear about the most are the ones that make up the majority, but that is often not the case.


              Odd_Canuck is not a topical medication or food product and is not to be taken internally or seriously.

              Comment


              • #37
                I think pointing out what seems to be a philosophical inconsistency in the rhetoric, I wouldn't take it as an attack against those for whom it doesn't apply. It certainly is a point to be made to those that think it does apply, and that's not a small number of people.

                I think one thing that people need to consider about the whole "anti-abortion=anti-woman" thing is that they have to understand that not as a personal attack or some kind of ad-hominem, but as the result of a behavior, a consequence of it. The anti-woman-ness of opposition abortion rights is not necessarily about what you THINK or FEEL but about what the PRACTICE of your opinion may result in for the women whose access to abortion resources are restricted or stigmatized.

                I don't care to say anybody is a bad person for feeling this way or that way about it, because I definitely understand the fundamental philosophical issue, and why for many people who are anti-abortion they feel a moral obligation to try to enact policy to support their view. I just want people to consider that the notion of being "anti-woman" here is not about your mean thoughts or supposed mean thoughts, but about your actions and their practical consequences.
                Last edited by Leetsepeak; 12-02-2016, 03:35 PM.


                Leetsepeak's Ex3 Homebrew Hub - Hub of homebrew for Exalted 3rd Edition that I've made.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by etherial View Post
                  Abortion only became a controversial issue (in the US) in the 80s when Conservatives needed a wedge issue to Get Out The Vote. That is when the notion that personhood began at conception was invented.

                  I think that's a somewhat shallow reading of history. The current anti-abortion movement in the US started directly in response to Roe v. Wade, it just didn't get mainstream political power until later as a voting bloc the conservative movements were willing to court in the 80s.

                  It's also neglecting a very long history of abortion being illegal (before Roe, 30 states flatly outlawed abortion, and 16 made abortion illegal with specific exceptions), where it wasn't really controversial to be anti-abortion because the majority of the country was anti-abortion in the eyes of the law. The few states with legal abortion without government interference and the long standing underground abortion practices where highly controversial; but they were not seen as national level issues.

                  Originally posted by Odd_Canuck View Post
                  This is rather a bit of tarring everyone with the same brush I think. Not all the pro-life people I know support the death penalty, but a very vocal minority do. Likewise not all the people that are pro-life that I've encountered are opposed to social support programmes. Again, the very vocal ones stand out and it's easy to assume the ones you hear about the most are the ones that make up the majority, but that is often not the case.
                  I think there's a certain amount of acceptable tarring here. In addition to the excellent points Leetsepeak made:

                  The biggest issue is that the forces Darksider talks about operate together as a political entity. Even if individual groups and people are for or against only part of those clusters of issues, the political power is concentrated by clustering those issues together into a single powerful voting bloc. There is a very big difference between what people individually personally believe, and what they feel needs to be in the law.. The people that choose to actively advocate against legal abortion (as opposed to people that simply would not personally get an abortion regardless of the risks and don't want to force that decision on others), are at a minimum in political bed with the death penalty advocates, the movement to eliminate/further restrict government assistance programs, the movements against "non-traditional" families being allowed to adopt, allowing "small government" funding cuts to reduce funding to public adoption agencies and the foster care systems, advocate insufficient or no sex-ed, etc.

                  However much a minority these people might be in numerically, they're not a minor group in terms of politics and law.

                  I know a lot of people that are personally anti-abortion for a number of reasons, but wholly believe in voting pro-choice because they recognize their position is a choice that shouldn't be forced on others, and they frequently express very similar feelings about the larger anti-abortion movement: that it isn't really about "life" because it doesn't push for the value of all life over the value of forcing pregnancies to be carried to term.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Thorbes View Post
                    Just the fact of being Pro-death penalty while saying they are Pro-life is a sick joke that makes imposible to sympatize with their claims.
                    I've heard similar statements from people on the right, about what a sick joke liberal's views are, how they oppose the death penalty while accepting abortion - that they value the lives of convicted murderers while turning a blind eye to the murder of unborn babies, so it's impossible to sympathize with anything liberals say.

                    And, to be fair to those people, they believe that there''s a big difference between allowing private citizens to kill someone before they have a chance to be born, and supporting the ability of the state to execute someone after they have committed a horrific crime, been found guilty by a jury of their peers, and had the chance (sometimes multiple times) to try and appeal that verdict to a higher court.

                    But then I'm someone who supports abortion and supports the death penalty, so I approach the table with the idea that abortion and the death penalty are two very different and very complex situations that are only superficially similar on the surface. So I don't think there's a schism in the thinking of those who oppose abortion and support the death penalty or in those who support abortion and oppose the death penalty.
                    Last edited by AnubisXy; 12-03-2016, 10:31 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Me personally I'd have no problem being described as "pro-death." (Or dare I say it? A "Deathist.") It's a pretty accurate description of my politics. I'm pro-abortion, pro-death penalty, and fairly hawkish in my foreign policy.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        My primary objection to the death penalty is that you can't un-execute someone if it turns out they were innocent.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Elfive View Post
                          My primary objection to the death penalty is that you can't un-execute someone if it turns out they were innocent.
                          Generally agreed. I'm okay with the idea of a death penalty in theory, but the way the US currently implements is a no-go for me and certainly I think there needs to be reform in the when and how the death penalty is implemented (and a major reform of the US' criminal justice system and criminal justice philosophy altogether).

                          I think the most important thing is that when deciding on a death penalty, the evidence needs to be higher than it normally is during a trial. During a trial someone is innocent unless there is "cause beyond a reasonable doubt" to find them guilty. But to inflict the death penalty, I think there needs to be a demand for an even higher level burden of proof - an "absolute certainty" that someone is guilty. Something such as a recording of the crime taking place or DNA evidence that renders the defendant's guilty to be definitive.

                          Too many death sentence convictions are found based off of witness testimony or questionable forensic data and, like you say, we can't un-execute someone. So in the absence of that sort of "hard proof," I don't believe the death penalty should even be an option on the table. But when such evidence can be presented by the prosecution I generally don't have an issue with those specific death penalty cases.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I have weird views on prisons and the like.

                            I am not a big proponent of a vengeance based penal system. I believe we should focus on rehabilitation. Having a percentage of the population locked up isn't a good idea. We need to reeducate them, find them productive work, and integrate them into society. This include those who have murdered, raped, etc. Prison right now teaches you to be a good criminal and/or prisoner. We should put serious effort and resources into teaching people how to live in the legal economy.

                            However, if the prisoner has proven not to re-integrated into society (repeat murderers and the like), then I see no point in keeping them locked up for the rest of their life. If you are so twisted, society deems fit to lock you away for the rest of your life, well, maybe the rest of your life should be short. These are the people that the death penalty is designed for.

                            It's probably a naive point of view, but can't be any worse than what we have now.



                            Are you ready to rage? Discover if you are Brave Enough to fight for the soul of the world.

                            The Werewolf: the Apocalypse Quest updates on Mondays. All are welcome to vote.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X