Ohio: Heartbeat Bill vetoed, other bill signed instead

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm not ashamed but it is an attempt to shame. And that doesn't make sense. That basically means squeamish people aren't allowed certain opinions.

Disgust and discomfort are natural human reactions to strange and unfamiliar things.

Using instinctive reactions as a justification for your side in something as important as this is a poor tactic that is honestly irrelevant in the long run.

Disgust and Discomfort arise from the body rejecting an abnorm. You might feel grossed out by surgery because it's not normal to enjoy seeing someone cut up, and it's a survival mechanism to be discomforted when you see a human wounded (surgery). You being grossed out by this 

 

Psychoanalysts have identified two kinds of basic instinct: “eros” or life instinct, and “thanatos” or death instinct.

 

But this is neither life nor death correct? Surgery brings someone close to death so it's natural to at first be discomforted by it

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Disgust and Discomfort arise from the body rejecting an abnorm. You might feel grossed out by surgery because it's not normal to enjoy seeing someone cut up, and it's a survival mechanism to be discomforted when you see a human wounded (surgery). You being grossed out by this 

 

Psychoanalysts have identified two kinds of basic instinct: “eros” or life instinct, and “thanatos” or death instinct.

 

But this is neither life nor death correct? Surgery brings someone close to death so it's natural to at first be discomforted by it

Many people find the creatures from Horror movies disturbing. Not because of life or death. But because how inhuman they appear. That's why they have unnatural movements, strange biology, and difficult to understand emotions/reactions.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Many people find the creatures from Horror movies disturbing. Not because of life or death. But because how inhuman they appear. That's why they have unnatural movements, strange biology, and difficult to understand emotions/reactions.

I'll take that, if abortion isn't life or death, it's just simply inhumane

[VCR_CAT]

It seems I need to spell everything out for you

 

No, it's called being clear with your stance; it's something people do when they want to actually make arguments.

 

 

It seems I need to spell everything out for you

 

The mortality rate among pregnant woman has dropped far below what it was in the days of Roe. The number of women who die from pregnancy complications, even in states with strict abortion laws doesn't come close to the # of abortions each year 

 

How is it consistent? I would sacrifice a life to save a 100

 

You should remember I wasn't just talking about mortality rates, though. That point, regardless of amount, is going into the deontology framework where your stance doesn't line up. You'll find I was also talking about people where having a child is going to have a significant and terrible effect on them financially. Did you know maternity leave is unpaid? Because I can think of a few reasons why 3 months of no paychecks if you're actually going to look after the child is going to screw someone over by a whole bunch. Or unwanted children born into families, I'm sure that's going to work out quite swell.

 

Because now, at this point, you're merely looking at the moral benefits purely as a matter of lives lost vs. lives gained, which if you're actually going to dig into ethics and have spent any amount of time learning about how arguing ethics works, you'll know that isn't enough. You need to look at the overall impact and what that's going to mean for the people involved, because the narrative you spin with your argument is that these children are going to be born into financially stable, functioning, full families where they'll live a great live and things will work out swell and that these people are only getting an abortion because it's a form of contraception (or do you wanna dig into those figures Enguin dug up and what each of that 92% you so lovingly neglected to actually look into could really mean).

 

If that's how it worked, if everything would work out so well for these children, then I would be more comfortable with stricter laws on abortion. Unfortunately, that's not how life works.

 

 

 

The entire point about my daughter since you didn't seem to grasp that point either was 1) I was pro-choice 2) I was pushing for an abortion 3) people can change when they actually look beyond the abstract and realize the material consequences of their views and actions

 

Like for example, are you against new papers publishing pictures of Aleppo and shaming Obama, Putin, and Trump for sitting by? There's bits of kids in 4-5 directions with a blazing headline "Shame of the West"

 

Guess what, people are actually doing something about it now, because pathos works

 

In my second year of Bible School, my dorm unit leader was a rape child who was adopted by a loving family and could've been aborted. He was a really cool dude, and honestly it would really suck to not see him. I got to know him pretty well and he definitely played a part during a particularly rough period in my life. I understand the weight of the fact that a fetus is going to be a child that will grow to be an adult. Actually, let's look at that Bible School part. Did you know I was born into a fairly conservative family? It may not seem it, because for one I don't actually talk about my views that much and most people here don't actually know me to a significant degree. I used to be pro-life without a doubt. I was under the assumption that abortion was just some procrastinated form of contraception and maybe people wouldn't need it if they weren't being irresponsible with their sex life before they're ready to have children.

 

But then I took the time to learn about why people are getting abortions and what's behind the decision they're making, and I learned it's not so black and white; that there's a lot of dynamics behind these decisions and that keeping the child isn't always going to be the objectively moral decision. I also learned that the law is not supposed to be based upon morality alone. The law is no substitute for morality. Outlawing abortion isn't going to make things good for everyone; it's not going to fix anything. All it means is that you're either forcing a decision on people that will have varying consequences to hopefully not that bad to terrible on many different degrees and feeling good that "wow, my nation has a law that's so moral" even though it's not actually really accomplishing anything.

 

My stance for supporting abortion is one based on compromise, because I took the time to listen to other side and realized it wasn't so black and white. If you took the time to read what I was saying, I'm advocating that yes, abortion should be legal for those situations it may be needed, but at the same time adoption networks and education on proper contraception should be more well supported to help minimize abortion situations to only when they're needed. Believe it or not, I'm trying to advocate for a better solution, but I'm trying to do so by finding a middle ground and maximizing gain while minimizing loss. If it was as simple as preventing deaths, then yes we can work towards treatments on pregnancy complications while trying to save the child as best as we can and the world is better now for it. Unfortunately, thinking that simply preventing abortions is going to be morally best outcome is naive, idealistic, and ultimately unrealistic.

 

It's great that your girlfriend kept the child and made things work out for herself. I admire the decision and when I say I support abortion to the degree that I do, I'm not saying she should have gotten one and I don't think you should see any of what we're saying as such. But you need to understand that just because you used to be pro-choice doesn't mean you have a full grasp of what both sides are talking about, because so far according to your arguments, you really don't. Also

 

 

As for the image, the entire argument on the left is that it's not a shocker image. That's a parasite that just happened to living off the body of hapless woman. It's not like it's...gasp...human. What's the reason to be shocked? Would posting a picture of a excised tumor or tapeworm be a "shocker image" cause they're really no different here right?

 

People don't need to disagree with you to find that picture gross. It's stupid to make that assumption and if you want people to take you seriously then you need to do better than that sheet.

Also also:

 

>Reportedly throws out words like bigot in debates

 

> Will likely call me a hypocrite before his post is over

 

Hey guess what, I didn't and you either didn't read or your reporter sucks.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I'll take that, if abortion isn't life or death, it's just simply inhumane

Inhuman doesn't necessarily mean inhumane.

[vla1ne]

 is there any reason to care about a fetus over the parent birthing it? especially in the eyes of the law? the parent is a currently (hopefully) productive member of society, they are contrubuting t society, and will hopefully continue to do so until a time comes when they really are ready and stable enough to have children. the abortion they are seeking is likely so that they can remain working without putting themselves through additional hoops that may or may not damage their life, if we're talking importance, i'll take the adult productive member over the unborn unproductive drain every time. 

 

 

as far as law goes, there's no real reason for it to support or restrict abortion, because there is nothing within the law that cares about fetuses, only about the born, and the parents of those born. adding in something that does as a new law would really only be for personal convenience, as i can see no other reason to amend the laws about it other than a personal view. regardless of whether or not you agree with abortion, it is not upon the law to decide what a pregnant woman can do with the being(s) inside her body. just because it may or may not be alive doesn't give it the right to live within the body of somebody who does not wish to support it. you can object to killing said fetus, but there is no objection that can, or should be made for legally forcing somebody to carry said fetus within their body.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Someone being pro choice doesn't mean they would be willing to have an abortion themselves. It doesn't mean they approve of abortion, it doesn't mean they like the idea. All it means is they think that for one reason or another, women deserve the choice to have one almost regarless of circumstances. That's why it's called pro-choice, not pro abortion. Which means the shame argument has far less weight than you are assigning it; You can be ashamed of abortion, and disgusted by it on a personal level, but still be pro choice. Being disgusted by the site of an aborted fetus does not mean your convinctions to being pro choice are lacking.

 

Because I think pro choice, and pro-life are two arguments with completely different basis; Pro-Life is about life and death, and about the moral wrongness of killing a baby. Pro-choice is an argument about the respective rights of an individual and how the law works around that. Amazingly enough, you can even be a pro-choice individual who thinks killing feutus's is wrong, but that the law allows for it anyway. Which is why I find your insistance on grouping us all together kinda silly once again. More of us have argued that the Feutus's rights are irrelevant than have argued that the fetues isn't alive iirc

 

On a side note; Attempting to guilt people out of there position is terrible form in an argument.

[Tentacruel]

Someone being pro choice doesn't mean they would be willing to have an abortion themselves. It doesn't mean they approve of abortion, it doesn't mean they like the idea. All it means is they think that for one reason or another, women deserve the choice to have one almost regarless of circumstances. That's why it's called pro-choice, not pro abortion. 

 

While you're correct, I doesn't mean no one is pro-abortion.  I see a lot of arguments in these types of debates that I would definitely classify as such.

 

On a side note; Attempting to guilt people out of there position is terrible form in an argument.

 

 

Which has come from both sides, even in this short debate on YCM.

[Aerion Brightflame]

While you're correct, I doesn't mean no one is pro-abortion.  I see a lot of arguments in these types of debates that I would definitely classify as such.

 

 

Which has come from both sides, even in this short debate on YCM.

 

I know. Again, I probably could have used less absolute phrasing, but I want to challenge Winter's attitude that being pro-choice means you are automatically pro-abortion. Just as I'm sure some idiots out there make the argument that being pro-life means you are automatically anti women. The arguments on both sides are usually fairly nuaced, and simplifying them down ends poorly.

 

And yes it has, I think I've even done it at somepoint. But i can at least give a reminder to try and hold everyone (Including myself) to a higher standard.

[a bad post]

See this is OK, you're seemingly not bothered by abortion, and you're seemingly not bothered by the aborted fetus

 

You aren't a hypocritical coward

 

Just like you mentioned it's pretty hard to find a consistent pro-lifer, it's pretty hard to find a consistent pro-choicer. I have to have some respect for you in that degree, even if I disagree with your position 

You want to talk about consistency you're perfectly ok with people murdered for the sake of "justice" (and other flimsy reasons), but abortion suddenly just too much for you Winter because you have what personal experience with it? Like do you think nobody else has personal experiences that caused them to be pro-choice just like yours cause you to be pro-life?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You want to talk about consistency you're perfectly ok with people murdered for the sake of "justice" (and other flimsy reasons), but abortion suddenly just too much for you Winter because you have what personal experience with it? Like do you think nobody else has personal experiences that caused them to be pro-choice just like yours cause you to be pro-life?

More lives are being saved than lost there though...I'm not "perfectly" ok with it though 

[VCR_CAT]

More lives are being saved than lost there though...I'm not "perfectly" ok with it though 

 

Read my post again; it's not that simple. The ethics for arguing against abortion entirely on all fronts, deontology, utilitarian, and even virtue just don't work. It's not a sound stance.

[Phantom Roxas]

You aren't a hypocritical coward

 

If you're going to accuse VCR_CAT of being likely to call you a hypocrite, it would help if you yourself didn't double down by implying other people in this thread are hypocritical cowards. Predicting that someone will make an ad hominem attack, only for you to then make a backhanded compliment against someone means that you were the one who resorted to making those insults.

 

By the way, saying that VCR_CAT "Reportedly throws out words like bigot in debates"? Please. I usually see you throw around "bigot" far more often, to the point that you've reduced its meaning to "Anyone who can't accept a different opinion", even though a big part of bigotry is how someone's prejudices make them so opposed to certain opinions.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I said nothing of the sort. I was expressing my respect for a political lefty (Jesse) and commending Elly for their consistency

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

-Thinks back to when I was 19 and my GF (at the time) had an abortion with our child without telling me- As angry as I was I still respected her decision to do so. My stance on abortion before and after that hasn't changed.