So according to the right wing a 12 y/o should be raped and should carry & raise a baby for the rest of her life just because “AbOrTiOn Is MuRdEr”.
Anti-abortion is a position exclusively for unreasonable or irrational people.
And privileged people.
Its the privilege that makes them unreasonable and irrational.
Same as the other polar extreme dogma.
… Gotta be some remedies for that, so people are alleviated of their unreasonableness and irrationality.
… … Mattias Desmet’s book The Psychology of Totalitarianism springs to mind. Main thrust of remedy is to keep speaking sensible nuance to those in a mass formation/groupthink/totalitarianised-psyche, even though it seems risky as they increasingly see any and all atrocities as necessary virtues, and double-down all the harder the more they’re confronted with the contradictions, the self-inconsistency, … which does seem more than just dangerous, but then you’ve got to compare that risk of danger with the greater escalating harm into worsening atrocities that happens all the faster when they go unchallenged.
Ummm one extreme is doing the right thing and one extreme is doing the wrong thing so I don’t know the point you are trying to make. Yes there are some cases when Abortion can cause harm to the mother than actually giving birth. But those specific cases are for the DOCTORS AND MOTHERS TO DECIDE and not anyone else.
I think you’re another responder to this who has missed what was meant there, not letting your imagination go far enough.
The opposite of an absolute dogma of no abortions is not some abortions. It’s all abortions. … Which is the political philosophy of some misanthropes (some of whom are very rich and powerful).
That’s still not pro-choice. That is anti-life lol. There are only 2 sides to this debate (which really shouldn’t even be a debate because even third world countries like India have better abortion laws than the US).
Oh boy…
* reads the rules before responding… “Be civil”.*
… This may be challenging to respond to, as I think I’ve run out of ability to calmly and kindly clear up the miscommunication/mistake, as your not-even-wrong double-down still misses the point straight after I had clarified (~ or so I thought I had ~ but that seems completely missed), parodying Jam’s “thick people” scene. And not only making the not-even-wrong fallacy, but also completely missing the broader principle [pro nuance, not falling for the manufactured divisive psyop’d groupthinks, the variety of perspectives, the other extreme, and especially, not falling for (nor being complicit in) the mutual unwitting abuse of cunningham’s law], doubling down even on that, insisting there are only 2 sides… What hope of receiving new information and nuance with that kind of thing going on?
[Perhaps drifting off-topic] When stuff like that goes on, I wonder about chemical lobotomisation via fluoride, mercury, aluminium, aspartame/aminosweet, anti-nutrients, etc, where the fine grain neuro-connections keep getting mowed down before they can facilitate ease of conceiving of new ideas, where the entrenched ideas grow on and on strengthening the pre-existing neuro-connections. Though/And also, again, evokes thoughts of Mattias Desmet’s explorations of the psychology of totalitarianism, in the “There are only” (and even the “which really shouldn’t even be a debate”), as that speaks to the reductive certainty of the one true way. Daunting.
… And just before I posted that… Thinking about how daunting it is, how pro division, how anti-nuance, trolling by playing dumb doing the very thing just called out, etc… And then my concern about my civility (rule 1) turns to my concern about your sapience (or not, as per rule 4 and 5 (no bots, no ai generated content)), and that (as per the old advice “don’t argue with fools as onlookers may not be able to tell you apart”), perhaps I should not have succumbed to xkcd386 here. [LOL. Cue the downvotes! (Over the target when taking fire?)]
…is that first part supposed to be a serious argument? The other side would say the exact same thing. It’s also an issue that inherently will never be black and white because children don’t develop in discrete stages, you can never point to a specific time and say “until here it’s ok”. Some of the arguments for abortion even still apply post-birth, such as the parents not being capable of caring for the child properly, making everyone including the child miserable. And the child a day before birth isn’t all that different from the child the day after.
I’d choose birth as the arbitrary cutoff point just because the child stops being part of the mother at that time and we have to put a limit somewhere, but I’d probably lose a lot of people with that (and I’d also still say that’s the right thing).
When there exist people unironically making the argument that factory farming is good actually because any life is better than no life, of course there will be a lot more wanting to just defend life for the sake of it even if it just makes everyone involved more miserable.
You only need one argument pro-choice and that is “Her body, her choice”.
And wtf are you talking about post-natal abortion? Literally no sane person is calling for that.
It’s really simple: Nobody has the right to use somebody else’s body without their consent. And that goes doubly if this is about a lump of cells.
You only need one argument pro-choice and that is “Her body, her choice”.
I’ve found that a weak ineffective incendiary argument.
Alarming that you say it’s the only argument needed.
An argument I’ve seen be far more effective many times, is “if you disallow abortions, you let rapsists choose the mothers of their children”.
Or another more broad: “Prohibition does not prevent. Prohibition makes the good things bad and the bad things worse.” For the “handing it over to the black market” coat-hangers argument.
Still even while having these discussions, to whichever extent to a side or to nuance one goes, it’s worth reminding ourselves how this is one of those divisive topics used to distract us, to keep us divided and conquered, while we’re all being [pardon the expression] screwed by the man, with usury and genocide and more happening all around out there, encroaching ever more inescapably. So it’s good to take a step back and see it from the level of control or freedom (which then can reunite desperate perspectives, sharing the same principles, and with that shared awareness, can better proceed through figuring out how to better meet those principles (~ certainly better than being at each others’ throats while we’re [again] getting screwed by the man), freeing up our time, attention, energy, for more important vital concerns.
Yes, women having bodily autonomy being an “incendiary argument” is definitely one of the many problems of the patriarchy.
I feel like you’re not stating your arguement very well because I don’t actually understand the point you’re trying to make. There is the anti-abortion crowd and then that’s it, there is no other side to the arguement.
People who are pro-choice are all about enabling others to make their own determinations, people who are anti-abortion are against people being able to make their own determinations. The difference is the pro-choice crowd aren’t forcing abortions on people who don’t want them, which would be the antithesis viewpoint. You see how the are not equivalent?
This isn’t even a philosophical issue — as much as the Right wants it to be — but a legal one. The basic concept is a pregnant individual must have the right to abort the pregnancy at any moment during. Law shouldn’t say if it is feasible or moral to abort the pregnancy because there is only one legal entity here — the mother. That choice should lay with the one who is pregnant. The feasibility of the pregnancy/abortion should be determined by medical professionals because each individual case is different.
Just want to say I appreciate you having the courage to provide counterpoints in a very biased space.
They’re not providing counter viewpoints They’re just being intransitive. There is no such thing as the force everyone to have abortions viewpoint so they are arguing in bad faith.
A lot of their comments are completely nonsensical as well, e.g.
When there exist people unironically making the argument that factory farming is good actually because any life is better than no life
I mean what the hell has that got to do with anything? We’re supposed to be talking about the morality of abortions and they throw in animal cruelty in there as if that’s some kind of counterpoint. Also I don’t think literally anyone thinks that factory farming is moral because otherwise the animals would never have existed, I’ve never heard of anyone espouse that view. Not that it would matter even if they did, because it’s got literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.
There is no polar extreme opposite of the anti abortion argument. It doesn’t exist.
Nobody is happy about getting an abortion. Some people might feel relief, but it’s not something they want to go through.
Also the equivalent extreme to the anti choice side would be “everyone is forced to have abortions” which while something close has been done (namely via population control methods and eugenics) those are widely agreed upon by the pro choice side to be similarly evil to prohibiting all abortions for the same reason (denial of bodily autonomy). In fact, in the modern day the eugenicists typically vote for the same parties as the ones wanting to prohibit abortions.
Thanks for getting it.
From a couple of the other replies here, I was starting to feel gaslight; I was starting to feel ilithiophbia.
In fact, in the modern day the eugenicists typically vote for the same parties as the ones wanting to prohibit abortions.
Yep. Same basic political philosophy of them telling others what to do, what they can do, what they can’t do, who they can be, who’s allowed to be, etc…
There is no polar extreme opposite of the anti abortion argument. It doesn’t exist.
Bold claim. Let me introduce you to some misanthropic extremists who want all babies aborted, and all people killed.
Nobody is happy about getting an abortion.
Bold claim. Let me introduce you to some edge case exceptional ladies.
Some people might feel relief, but it’s not something they want to go through.
Some may indeed, but also, some rare few are going further. … Some of which I suspect an irrational reflexive over-“correction” to a hostile groupthink and the language used, unfortunately creating the counter-groupthink, even unto, as mentioned in my original comment there, mass formation and totalitarianised psyche, where any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues. I don’t think being arrogantly presumptive and ignorant in denial of such socio-psyche problems lends any real world help to create the nice world in your mind where such extremes do not exist, not even in your imagination. We’ve much to mend in this world.
Lol Jesus Christ dude… Talk about nonsense.
If you have a cogent refutation, I’m eager to hear it.
I’m not sure if it is possible to cogently refute meaningless word salad.
Same as the other polar extreme dogma.
My friend, after reading the rest of your comment, I suspect this is just a very unfortunate choice of words. Because you go on to talk about totalitarianism and although totalitarian regimes can force people to get abortions, it’s not a commonly held political view, at least among Westerners.
I suspect you meant to say “other extreme dogma.” But your use of “the” and “polar” would make every native English speaker think you intended to say “same as the extreme polar opposite dogma,” which means you’re talking about pro-choice extremism specifically.
I can’t be sure that you didn’t intend that meaning. If you did intend to mean pro-choice extremism, then you brought the response upon yourself. But if you didn’t, may I suggest you be more careful with wording, especially in your first sentences?
which means you’re talking about pro-choice extremism specifically.
LOL! No. XD
Pro-choice sounds much more like a sane middle ground. Use your imagination, go further than the middle (~ which may or may not be a dogmatically held position), to the other polar extreme than abortions=none, to the misanthropic anthrocidal all.
The 12-year-old would die in childbirth as god intended. These people don’t actually care about the baby they just care about having power over other people.
specially women, specially young women
There’s a group that see falling teenage pregnancy and say that’s the reason birth rates are falling In the west. They then equate falling birth rates with the erasure of culture. Therefore, in their head, teenage pregnancy is necessary as is carrying it to term.
A wholly messed up view.
Jesus can you imagine how messed up for the next generation would be if the vast majority of them were raised by parents who were basically kids themselves?
It’s even worst than that, yes it’s all that AND it doesn’t apply to them, namely they’ll shout that insanity to each other, and the whole World, to see but when it’s “them” then they, rationally of course, find a clinic. Absolutely garbage of human beings who are not coherent. Do as I say, not as I do.
Well of course, the divine providence of their perfect God guided the penis to this holy deed. Man is not the interfere with His will.
Republicans when abortion: Noooo every life is sacred!!!111 ;(((((
Republicans when someone gets cancer: “Well should’ve saved 250.000 dollars just in case. Go die peasant, public healthcare is communism!!!”
Now lets spend another trillion for this year’s megadeaths.
“Pro-Life”.
You know what far-right religious nuts DO NOT like to know?
God has aborted more babies than every doctor ever born. He delights in the blood, as I understand it. Can’t get hard without it. And how is Mary going to catch a stray savior load if God can’t get his cross up?
Dude why are some people here so weird? There are legitimate arguments that can be made even in the context of religion that definitely don’t step down to the same level of these right-wing nuts. Imagine you turn your argument pro-right. Don’t sound too dissimilar now huh?
Can you try again, because I have no idea what the hell you’re trying to say?
You know what far-right religious nuts DO NOT like to know?
That Paul was doing law and order.
You know what far-right religious nuts DO NOT like to know?
That Paul was doing law and order.
^ Best answer to that.
I may have gone for “How old Mary [(and Joseph)] was.”
How old?
I hear apocryphal sources confirm 12 and 80.
Or what Kaneh Bosm (in the original language bible’s description of the ingredients of the holy anointing oil that makes one christ) is correctly translated as.
Do you mean when he was Saul?
SVU?
Logic? Coherence? What is all that? /s
Why is there a pregnant 12 year old girl where you’re standing brilyn?
You must not understand National Security.
10-1 he’s had to drive some 12 year old across state lines to get his baby out of her.
they care more about the abortion because if she doesn’t carry it to term, they’ll have one less child to rape.
So let me guess, his solution is to register all menstruating women and restrict them from leaving state lines right? Freedom.
I’m waiting for them to legalize sex slavery as punishment for a crime, I never thought it would actually get that bad but at this point…
I feel like they’re both missing the point. Obviously Captain Pedo is totally down with pregnant tweens, but Hofstetter got whooshed by the fact that the father is probably also a 12 year old, and that the possible involvement of rape should have zero bearing on whether or not she should have safe access to abortions. Hell, at 12 they should be mandatory.
the fact that the father is probably also a 12 year old
Please don’t spread misinformation, your “fact” is flat-out wrong.
In fact, the father is probably much older… and very often 20+
Neither of you are dropping facts. You’re both talking about hypotheticals and not accounting for facts at all.
This data is from the 90s. But here’s some facts.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10227344/
Adult fathers, responsible for 26.7% of births to very young adolescents, were a mean of 8.8 years older than the mother. The risk factors for adult compared to adolescent paternity were as follows: father’s educational attainment of at least 3 years below that considered adequate for his age [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 8.34], father’s (AOR = 2.46) or mother’s (AOR = 1.36) educational attainment 1-2 years below that considered adequate for their age, mother’s birthplace outside the United States (AOR = 3.12), and father’s Hispanic ethnicity (AOR = 1.60) or African-American race (AOR = 1.50).
Thank you, better than idiots treating “probably” as fact. Smdh
“hey fuckface” lands better than “I’m sorry” Steve is a better human than I.
Is there any kind of murder other than a vicious murder?
There’s murder-kabobs, murder creole, murder gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There’s pineapple murder, lemon murder, coconut murder, pepper murder, murder soup, murder stew, murder salad, murder and potatoes, murder burger, murder sandwich. That… that’s about it"
^ this fella’s murder game
This reads like Monty Python’s Spam sketch.
It’s Bubba’s shrimp monologue from Forrest Gump.
Ooh, do you by chance have a pineapple upside-down murder? That would really hit the spot.
There’s ways to truly derive suffering from someone who is wholly deserving. I won’t say what you do.
Yeah they tried to do the child defense thing they often do with trans kids. But getting raped, carrying a child at 12 years old, and giving birth sounds infinitely worse then having an abortion.
Translation: My 12 year old baby mamma is trying to leave me, but that baby is mine!
Willing to bet brllyrrlly-whatever-the-fuck is also opposed to any kind of birth control or sex education that helps prevent 12 year olds getting pregnant.
As I say in every thread:
Blue Checkmark Lunatics.
In my eyes, these posters mind as well be bots. I do not get why still use Twitter.
mind as well
Sorry, but /c/boneappletea@lemmy.world
Fair.
I accept my shame.
Why is the pregnant child traveling away from where he’s standing specifically?
