Got it.
You want to require 30,000 kids to be born to parents who don't want them, just so you can force a 10-year-old victim to birth herremoved's baby.
You want to require hundreds of loving mothers to endanger their lives by insisting that they continue to carry doomed pregnancies long after doctors have proven the fetus cannot survive and is in excruciating pain even before it is born. Why? So you can force a 10-year-old to bear herremoved's child?
Go to hell, Kaya.
Here's a fucked up article about study done in states with abortion restrictions. Around 64,000 babies born from SA in states with abortion restrictions. And somehow we're the extremists for not wanting that, for wanting all women to have a choice.
I had a friend in college who was aremoved baby
Her mother abused and neglected her so badly that she wished she was aborted. There were several suicide attempts. She only still exists because of her step dad.
You aren’t doing these children any favors by forcing them to exist.
I can only guess what the context here is but to imply that "they're fine with kids gettingremovedd" is almost definitely an extremely dishonest strawman of what they're actually trying to say. This type of bad-faith dunking on people you disagree with only makes them dig down their heels even deeper and, I'd argue, is only making things worse.
If I had to steelman their position without knowing full context, I'm assuming that what they're trying to say is that abortion shouldn't be legal just because of the comparatively small number of cases where it perhaps would be justified (incestremoved) because it opens the door to a huge number of what they see as unecessary abortions.
If one truly cares about changing minds rather than scoring worthless internet points then you need to take down the foundations - not break the windows. Breaking windows is fun and easy but it doesn't achieve anything. Listen to what people are saying and challenge their core beliefs.
If I had to steelman their argument I'd wonder if they are properly informed about the very real, well documented physical risks to children from getting pregnant and carrying to term. Death is one option, but long term physical disability due to spinal and hip fractures aren't unheard of. As well as a long list of other physical and psychological effects I'm not gonna put here.
So what I'm gathering is that this person is either very, VERY uneducated about the physical consequences of childbirth, both for adults and children, and just how frequently children are sexually assaulted.
Either they're very ignorant, possibly willfully, or they are straight up a troll. Poe's law makes it increasingly difficult to tell these days. Ignorance can be a temporary state of being, but would they care about medical data? Who knows.
I think the point here is that they’re willing to “sacrifice” a few 10-year-olds if it means saving tens of thousands of other children aborted yearly for what they see as lesser reasons.
Though I don’t agree with their view, if a religious person genuinely believes that life begins at conception and sees no difference between ending the life of a 10-day-old embryo and a 10-year-old child - because they believe both lives are equally valuable - then I can’t entirely fault their reasoning. In this case, the issue lies with their false, unscientific religious beliefs, not necessarily their stance on abortion. If you truly believe that life starts at conception, being against abortion is a perfectly logical position to take.
Even ignorong all those risks there's also simply not being into having children and wanting to live without them.
But you need to understand that to a religious person this is a completely insane thing to say. You can't simply kill a person just because you don't want to be inconvenienced by having to take care of them. They see abortion as an equivalent to killing a 3-year-old who refuses to eat their vegetables.
Except these same people very often don't believe in welfare, socialised medicine, believe in overseas military intervention, etc.
Not that such views are expressed in OP, maybe they're actually very principled on this matter (e.g. 1 fetus aborted is equal to one Palestinian kid being blown up, or one homeless person dying to exposure). But I've pretty much always found these things are a package deal.
I think this also ignores the history of anti-abortion politics. Even for Catholics it's a relatively recent invention, let alone american protestants, and it always seems to rear its head during fears of demographic decline. The individual (stated) belief follows the political and material circumstances before it.
There have been 0 unnecessary abortions performed on earth. There have been billions of unnecessaryremoveds. The world would be a better place if we had had more abortions and lessremoveds.
Thank you. Here and in your answers down below you show that you are willing to honestly think about the position the other side has. I greatly appreciate that (in general, not only in regards to this topic) for the reasons you listed above. If you realy want to get trough to another person, taking their position serious and trying to understand it is the first step, that is misses so many times for a trough a way "gotcha" moment nowadays.
This is one of those topics that people like to force their views on others and not care about the consequences. Another good example is porn. "I don't think people should watch porn" is something people actually vote for. Yet all the studies performed show sexual assaults andremoveds increase everywhere you ban porn. So forcing their views on people has real consequences and they just don't want to acknowledge them.
A vote to ban porn is a vote to increaseremoveds and sexual assaults. Yes that includes more children beingremovedd as well.
A vote to ban abortions doesn't stop abortions, all it does is increase the number of mother's and babies dying from unsterilized attempts at aborting, children being thrown in dumpsters, buried alive, left outside, dropped at fire departments, put into underfunded orphan systems that have more kids than they can get adopted BEFORE you took away their safer way of not abusing a child.
The only thing these votes do is take away people's choice, and hurt people.
A vote to ban abortion or porn is a vote to hurt people.
Either a willful troll or just outright mask off fash, either way to the wall with them
https://www.newsweek.com/lie-back-enjoy-it-ifremovedd-state-rep-jokes-hed-tell-daughters-1685698
In my country:
- the payment for all the exams done during the pregnancy cost €0
- The delivery itself costs €0
- if the woman was working, will continue to get full salary until the baby is 5 months old (can opt for longer but then the salary is reduced)
- The government will pay to the parent a monthly check of some hundreds euro (according to the income)
- Preschool is free (although need to pay canteen fees)
I'm guessing the poster is from that country where if you aren't insured you're going to pay 20k for the delivery and then you're going to financially struggle until the end, right?
In that country people is choosing abortion not because having a baby is unaffordable, but only because they're evil monsters
No, it's to point out that this "anti abortion" policy is all about punishing those whores that had sex outside wedding, as if it's something you do alone and not with a man.
If they really care about minimizing the abortion rate, they should enact policies that help the woman after birth, and not give decades of financial struggles as "punishment for having fun that night"
Personally, I am pro-"let the people do what the fuck they want with their bodies"
Can you clarify the last point of your original comment? I don't quite get what was supposed to be said there despite the clarification. :x
My body is my body and a legislator has no right to say if I can't remove an unwanted object from it
We have to embrace false dichotomies because the only alternative is cannibalism.
Rightists are powerless against their own mental removed, it’s hard-coded in the sewage that is their DNA
