As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Fornicators should be punished
Gorak
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Abortion-Only if the mother is going to die should an abortion be performed(its my religions fault), because I believe it is a form of murder and thusly has a negative effect on another individual.
No illegal immigration/punish employers
So libertarians don't believe in the seperation of church and state?
Well murder is not allowed in the libertarian society (any society?), and at this point I consider the fetus to be a valid human. If science proves to me that the fetus is in fact not human, then free abortions for everyone!!!!!
What is a "valid" human? You're second setence only refers to proving the fetus human or not, yet I have toe-nail clippings that are human.
You seem to be working on the principal that every life is sacred until it's born. At which point, fuck 'em, they're on their own.
Gorak on
0
Posts
Pretty standard pro-life attitude. And look what happens as a result. That's freedom, baby!
Don't do that. I'm a cynic so I expect this kind of shit, but I don't need you to prove me right thank you very much.
The last thing in that article bothers me:
Does the article author mean that pro-life policies are the cause of these spikes? Because that seems to be what she's saying. I'm sure I don't need to point out the causation/correlation difference here.
If she isn't saying that than she chose a really poor way to word her conclusion.
I think she is implying that, in fact, but at Feministe they're not fond of continuously restating the same explanations over and over.
Reading between the lines (and from prior experience):
"Pro-life" policies are really just anti-abortion policies. If women can't abort unwanted pregnancies then they risk long-term bodily injury and/or death (infant and/or maternal mortality), plus the economic disadvantage prospect of single parenthood. Women can't make as much more or get as much education, stay poor, etc.
You should read the article in Freakomnomics that links the drop in crime rates in Roe v. Wade.
I think the idea is that the women most likely to seek out an zabortion and take advantage of free clinics are the women who would be the least able to support a kid on their own, and/or the ones who didn't receive education on birth control.
Of course not, that's retarded. Simply being pro-life does not make a state suddenly worse off for women's rights and standard of living. I think that the state is failing those women by not doing more to support them, regardless of their stance on abortion. Perhaps being pro-life is part of the same mindset that also includes the oppression of women, but the two are not synonymous.
You're right in that they shouldn't go hand-in-hand, but I think the point of those statistics is that in practice, the "pro-life" mindset leads to a whole lot of unhealthy and oppressive conditions for women.
If a large majority of a state's elected officials are "pro-life" then they're extremely likely to pass "pro-life" laws.
Sadly, aborting a fetus in fact may give women financial and educational advantages over the course of their lifetime.
Yeah, but it's not the abortion itself that's doing it, it's the responsibility that comes with raising a child. Which doesn't have to rest squarely on the shoulders of women. The fact that in a lot of conservative North America (Canada isn't a whole lot different when it comes to this) women are given sole responsibility for children is the real issue here. A girl I used to work with got pregnant at 19 and the father disappeared. Now she struggles in poverty trying to get her automotive ticket while raising a child alone.
Then another girl I used to work with became a very successful pharmacist because the father took over primary care. The choices they made allowed her the freedom to pursue her career.
I think seeing the father as somehow less responsible is a big part of the problem with women's rights and their standard of living when it comes to children.
I agree, in part, but you do realize that that is precisely Cat's point in citing those articles?
"Pro-life" is almost a complete misnomer. So-called "pro-life" policies always accompany other really bad policies, like cutting all public funding for child care and other early human development essentials, and forcing women solely into caretaking roles.
"Pro-life" is up front about its anti-abortion stance, but indirectly and by association it also stands for anti-women.
By association. But the article didn't say that. It simply said
So the not-so-subtle insinuation is, anyone who opposes abortion is also supporting the subjugating of women.
Well, yes. They are, whether they're aware of it (or intend to be) or not.
...
I think I'm gonna have to concede that point.
I wouldn't really call it an "insinuation," so much as a "fact."
The subjugation of women is an externality of anti-abortion policies.
I still believe that if men got pregnant, all other things being the same, abortions would be available over the counter. Next to the viagra.
This isn't a new conclusion. Maternal mortality dropped sharply after RvW came in, and rose sharply in... I think it was Nicaragua recently under their newly restrictive laws. There's also good data from Romania under the dictatorship. 'Good data' being roughly synonymous with 'enormous orphanages full of developmentally neglected children who have no hope of a normal life'.
That's about it, yeah. The mindset sees any pregnancies not fully socially sanctioned (old enough, married, well-off mothers ) as basically deviant, and punishes them. Don't want them 'welfare queens' getting uppity, after all.
Why? It's not like these elected officials aren't actively campaigning on their "pro-life" views during their campaigns.
I think it's pretty disheartening that the "pro-life" campaign works, but how is that a problem with democracy?
Yes, they are, at least where public policy is concerned.
The pro-life position is that a woman shouldn't have complete control of her body.
The pro-life position is that the laws concerning murder affect everyone INCLUDING pregnant women. They don't get to skip out.
Sure there is: it's called pro-choice.
Seriously, though: if you're really opposed to abortion then you should vote for people who will craft and enact policies that will lower the number of abortions through education, funding, etc.
Fetuses aren't citizens; women are, and therefore should not be held legally hostage to unwanted fetuses, especially when said fetuses are attached to that woman's body.
I'm not too in favor of lawmakers that draw points of "citizen vs. just alive" in their decision-making process for legislating murder.
I'm not in favor of lawmakers legislating murder either, but I also think that women are human beings with as much say over their bodies as men have over theirs, and that lawmakers must stay out of human beings' medical decisions. That's why we have doctors.
Can we keep the government out of my personal decisions regarding construction of nuclear weapons as well? That's why we have physicists.
Are you building nuclear weapons with your uterus?
Does the fact that I'd build them on purpose rather than on accident count for me or against me in this pseudo-court?
Misleading point. Babies are not concieved like Mary's was. Rape notwithstanding, it's done intentionally.
You're losing me here. Regardless of whether a pregnancy is intended or not, a woman still owns her body, and therefore she alone has the right to determine what she's going to do with it.
If you have a magical uterus that grows nuclear warheads, then regardless of whether you intended that or not, it's your uterus to do what you will.
Wow. Every single pregnancy is perfectly planned and desired? You might want to research that a little first.
If women could accurately control conception then a lot of problems would be solved.
Fine. Then same logic, they're my hands, and what they do should not be governed.
Sex of some sort = babies
No sex of any sort = no babies
That's nowhere near the same thing as claiming that all pregnancies are "intentional."
And, since women own and have total control over their bodies, they have the right to use them to have sex and, voila, terminate pregnancies when they're not wanted.
Being fully human means owning your body.