The dearth of self-awareness

#31
Yeah, I predict this harming more women than it helps.
Reply
#32
(Feb 4, 2019 10:44 PM)Leigha Wrote: Yeah, I predict this harming more women than it helps.

Yeah, if nothing else, roughly half of all abortions, in countries that do not have sex-selective abortions, are female.
But there are also many stories of regret and lasting mental/spiritual trauma swept under the rug by abortion advocates.
Reply
#33
Syne Wrote:But there are also many stories of regret and lasting mental/spiritual trauma swept under the rug by abortion advocates.
I think (most) people on both sides of the debate are aware of that. Edit .. I posted too soon .. but at least avoided (edit2 .. the worst of) the sarcasm ..
Reply
#34
(Feb 5, 2019 01:54 AM)confused2 Wrote:
Syne Wrote:But there are also many stories of regret and lasting mental/spiritual trauma swept under the rug by abortion advocates.
I think (most) people on both sides of the debate are aware of that.

So you really thing all the women who get abortions are well-aware of the fact that many women have felt duped into doing something they really didn't want to do and now have to lives with that?

Planned Parenthood definitely isn't telling them. Abortion lobbyists, with their #ShoutYourAbortion, definitely aren't telling women that. And there's tons of propaganda to keep women from believing it happens:

This Study Should End The Debate About Whether Women Regret Having Abortions
The Myth of Abortion Regret
Hardly Any Women Regret Having an Abortion, a New Study Finds
Years After My Abortion, I’m Thinking About What Might Have Been. But I Don’t Regret It.

So who on the abortion advocacy side is telling women, or even believes, that many women experience regret? You know, the abortion advocates who teach our children and create a majority of the entertainment and news. I'd be interested if you could show me many.
Reply
#35
Syne Wrote:So you really thing all the women who get abortions are well-aware of the fact that many women have felt duped into doing something they really didn't want to do and now have to lives with that?
I'm saying that many women who get abortions will not regard it as an easy choice either at the time or later. For some (it doesn't matter how many) an abortion will be the right choice both at the time and on reflection many years later. What (I think) SS is arguing for is that women should have the freedom to make that choice themselves rather than have you (or someone like you) make that decision for them.
Reply
#36
(Feb 5, 2019 02:34 AM)confused2 Wrote:
Syne Wrote:So you really thing all the women who get abortions are well-aware of the fact that many women have felt duped into doing something they really didn't want to do and now have to lives with that?
I'm saying that many women who get abortions will not regard it as an easy choice either at the time or later. For some (it doesn't matter how many) an abortion will be the right choice both at the time and on reflection many years later. What (I think) SS is arguing for is that women should have the freedom to make that choice themselves rather than have you (or someone like you) make that decision for them.

No one said anyone found it an easy choice, but lack of awareness of long-term regret certainly does make killing human life an easier one. Just because some (it doesn't matter how many) can convince themselves it was the right choice (with the aforementioned propaganda as justification...and isolation from support otherwise) doesn't make it so.

No one has the right to kill a human life. Women not only have more options to prevent unwanted pregnancy than men do, they also have the morning after pill, and even failing that, they have the choice to completely absolve themselves of any responsibility whatsoever, which men do not. So compared to men, they have a wealth of choice in the matter, and they're still demanding more...like spoiled brats.
Reply
#37
Quote:So compared to men, they have a wealth of choice in the matter, and they're still demanding more...like spoiled brats.

LOL! Incel much?
Reply
#38
(Feb 5, 2019 03:40 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:So compared to men, they have a wealth of choice in the matter, and they're still demanding more...like spoiled brats.

LOL! Incel much?

Talk about non sequitur. Is that projection?

Not all women demand abortion rights.
Reply
#39
(Feb 5, 2019 02:34 AM)confused2 Wrote: What (I think) SS is arguing for is that women should have the freedom to make that choice themselves rather than have you (or someone like you) make that decision for them.

Women have plenty of choices. The pill, the sponge, the patch, the ring, the shot, the implant, the morning-after pill, adoption, and even anonymously leaving the newborn at a fire station. They have a vast amount of freedom in the matter.
By contrast, men only have a condom (or vasectomy more permanently), no after-the-fact options, and no way to completely abdicate their responsibilities the way women can.

I wish they would/could make responsible, adult decisions for themselves, as they have every conceivable option to avoid ending human lives. And all it requires is that we quit treating women like children and expect them to take as much responsibility for their choices as men are expected to. You either successfully prevent an unwanted pregnancy or you're accountable for the consequences. That's equality, and that's all it takes to stop killing babies.

With all the options available to women, abortion is just being too lazy to be moral. It's equivalent to a man punching his girlfriend to cause an abortion. He was too lazy to wear a condom and/or too immoral to do the right thing, and he doesn't care who he has to harm to avoid the consequences. And in most states, that don't have laws similar to the new one in NY, he would be charged with murder if the fetus dies.


I get that many guys are squeamish about lady-stuff and feel the need to placate women for their approval. But this is just about the human right to life and equal rights and duties under the law. You know, egalitarian feminism.
Reply
#40
Syne’s political stunts…
(Feb 2, 2019 07:37 PM)Syne Wrote: They do not define "health", which means it could be non-life-threatening illness or mental health, i.e. mother's subjective whim.
There is ZERO language in the bill about viability, so your "when the fetus is no longer viable" is completely made up.
(Feb 3, 2019 04:01 AM)Syne Wrote: And NY is saying you can kill a baby AFTER it can survive outside the womb. So there goes that argument.
(Feb 4, 2019 05:58 PM)Syne Wrote: No, again, your freedom ends where it harms another human life. Your temporary health, body integrity, emotions, employment, and affiliations do not justify killing a human life, monster.

Again, the NY law allows aborting viable babies for just about any reason, like the aforementioned health, emotions, etc.. So any argument of yours centered around viability is completely disingenuous unless you decide to utterly disavow laws like the one in NY.

And "the continued existence of the [born child] ... is entirely contingent on the provision of affirmative support by a [caregiver]". So your reasoning not only supports abortion, it also supports infanticide, psychopath.
(Feb 4, 2019 09:12 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, you add in "health" as an euphemism that effectively means any reason whatsoever. Should you also kill your child who has a cold because he might threaten your health by spreading it to you? Should you kill the homeless because they may be a threat to public health, like the current typhus outbreak in California? Of course not, as a threat to health is very different from a threat to life.

And again, for the umpteenth time, the NY law allows abortion of viable babies for effectively any reason. So all your hemming and hawing about how rare later-term abortions are is meaningless if you don't want them limited in any way.

That is a gross misrepresentation of the law.
3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

© For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

At the point in time when the fetus becomes viable, the state may regulate the abortion procedure only to the extent that such regulation relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health; from and after the point in time when the fetus becomes viable, the state may prohibit abortions altogether, except those necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, and the state may proscribe the performance of all abortions except those performed by physicians currently licensed by the state.

Nobody is pro-abortion. They’re pro-choice. That doesn’t mean that the fetus is completely irrelevant, though. That’s not what the debate is about. It's about the ability of a woman to choose. The mental health exemption is not a loophole that’s easily exploited like you’re portraying. It’s necessary to protect a woman’s life or health as determine by a licensed physician. There’s a conservative approach. Mental health is only included when the legal text actually employs the term. The psychological distress caused by, for example, rape or incest, or by diagnosis of fetal impairment.

Syne Wrote:A woman's life being in danger is trivial, because without her life, the fetus dies anyway.

It’s called severe maternal morbidity.

A woman’s life may be trivial to you but records show that the rates of severe maternal morbidity is increasing.

We have a history of oppression. This is something that you cannot deny. You were not born to dominate and rule over us. History shows that criminalizing abortion didn’t prevent them from happening.

A woman’s life may be trivial to you but thousands of women died each year due to back alley and self-induced abortions. Legalization has allowed us access to safe abortions with the decision left to a woman and her doctor without state interference.

There are plenty of restriction revolving around live but nonviable fetuses. Since you seems to take so much pleasure in trying to seize the moral high ground, perhaps you could volunteer to be a stillborn birth coach.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)