Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Alabama outlaws abortion
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
That's a fairer appraisal than before but I feel it's still missing an important part of the discussion. Namely, what is meant by "life". One side will argue it's purely biological life which starts at conception while the other side will approach the concept of life differently, taking moral and ethical arguments into consideration (even on the pro-choice side there's no concensus on what life means exactly in this context). That's what makes it so difficult. A pro-choicer will argue that they're against terminating a living person, it's just that their definition of a living person is different.
This brings me back to a debate I once had in another thread here about the West trying to impose the it's civilisation, democracy and culture on the rest of the globe, because they are economically more powerful and the others have always depended on them.
The pattern you're referring to is a cultural pattern, historically the more developed countries of this world have been those of the Western civilisation and all those in the process of trying to become more developed copy the pattern of the more developed ones, including their civilisation, values and culture. We see an effort of globalisation of values which may (or not necessarily) be a good idea. Maybe I'm digressing a little bit.
(By the way, personally I don't oppose progressive to regressive but to conservative.)
Of course. The rest of the confederate states will follow suit in short order.
Fully agree with you. Which is why I strongly believe the debate in society is far from over.
Funnily enough I don't recall other developed nations forcing us to have a referendum last year and I don't recall them forcing the 68% of people who voted Yes to do so but.. sure why not.
Their official state motto.
The economic state of a country is a direct aggregation of the economic state of it's individuals.
I am not saying that. Children should be born to parents willing and able to raise them to the best of the parents' ability.
Perfectly understood.
Georgia - abortion bans but has death penalty
Alabama - abortion bans but has death penalty
Missouri - abortion bans but has death penalty
So how does that work with the "pro-life = protecting all life" thing?
I think the argument would be "protecting innocent life".
I think you are from a developed country so your country didn't have to be forceed to do anything, you share the same Western civilisation and values... I guess.
Again, so poor people shouldn't procreate unless they are sure and certain of being financially able to raise the kids?
(If that's what you mean, you may be onto something, only I have never thought of it that way, before)
Unless innocent life is lost in a hail of bullets. In which case nobody should ever be allowed to change the legislation to protect them.
Again, no, that is not what I mean. Procreation should not be limited to the rich/middle classes.
Yeah but we're talking about the most powerful western country there is right now and how one of their own states just made abortion illegal, so how does your argument hold up?
Then they are not exactly pro-life according to MY definition because I oppose the death penalty as well.
Pro-life means "pro-" "life". All life matters.
All of these "Alabama is backwards" comments are unhelpful. Michigan is passing restrictions in the legislature and will have to be vetoed by the governor. Ohio is passing more restrictions.
The problem is Republicans. There are no good Republicans.
The problem is Republicans. There are no good Republicans.
Well that part of my post was making reference to my argument on another thread, it may have been misleading to include that here (I recognised that it was a digression).
What I was saying was in response to your point about the pattern of developed countries permitting and less developped banning.
Jackass opinions get jackass responses. Pro lifers really need to get their head on straight for the real priorities in this world.
To answer your question, because it was someone's opinion that it should be a law. Here's a question for you. Building is on fire, and you have the option of either saving a baby or thousands of fertilized eggs. Which do you save?
If innocent life is lost in a hail of bullets you should of course strive to have more innocent bullets protecting against evil bullets.
Alright, well I haven't researched but aren't they also states that are against any form of gun control too?
Good that you have that consistency.Then they are not exactly pro-life according to MY definition because I oppose the death penalty as well.
Pro-life means "pro-" "life". All life matters.
good logicImagine not starting a discussion on a discussion forum.
That's literally what pro choice is
Edit (sorry if this sounds heated, just here to point this out)
But it is in the vast majority of the world. It's been so settled that it took a backwater state like Alabama in crazy Trumpian times to diverge from that settled status.
We're just outsiders commentating on that change.
And he thought I wouldn't notice
Personally, I would classify that as an ethical (or moral) dilemma.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Democrats are fundamentally useless.
I’ve always liked Ari Shaffirs stance which I’ll paraphrase to;
“Yes I believe that at a certain point Abortion could be seen as murder. But I’m ok with that type of murder”
Many American states stance on the ownership of women’s bodies is far worse than Saudi Arabia banning women driving.
Intelligent countries all seem to have got to a good place. America is, as always, broken.
“Yes I believe that at a certain point Abortion could be seen as murder. But I’m ok with that type of murder”
Many American states stance on the ownership of women’s bodies is far worse than Saudi Arabia banning women driving.
Intelligent countries all seem to have got to a good place. America is, as always, broken.
Maybe, but the baby is the one being saved in the end, not the other things.
Not that particular discussion. If you've been following my posts in this thread you would realise I've been avoiding to get into the For or Against debate, discussing more on the fact that the debate exists at all.
See here:
Rather I hoped you wouldn't notice.I don't see why should it even matter when "life" is conceived?. Its a question of women's rights with their own body.
Its like an intruder breaks into your house and claims they have as much right as you do and you don't get to kick them out!
Maybe for you but for me it's not as clear-cut as that. It will be a tough choice for me and I honestly don't have an answer to it.
Are all anti-choice advocates vegans? Do they avoid stepping on ants, swapping flies and mosquitoe? Do you make sure microscopic organisms are always safe from predations?
These are important distinctions because no 'prolifer' I have ever met is consistent about advocating for "life".
Whats relevant to abortion is human life not "life". And human life depends on a nervous system advanced enough to support human consciousness (thus not possible the first 12 weeks).
This is why your position is not inherently moderate in any way because 'prolifers' are forcing a highly subjective and logically inconsistent religious belief system on other people which is oppressive.
I get that the thought of it is hard for some, but I'm certain that the actual human life will be saved in the end.
Counting blue and green countries, that's literally the vast majority.
This guy gets it
It really isn't though. I feel like a lot of countries could do with updating their laws and a lot of them have only changed them recently (see Ireland). In the US they have been fighting abortions tooth and nail far longer than Trump has been president. It is simply a resurgence now that there is a conservative majority on the supreme court and they feel they can challenge Roe v Wade. I think this is a battle that si far from "won" in a quite significant part of the world.
You'd just sit there in the fire with them then?