My measure?
Allowing people to have a choice - moderate
Not allowing people to have a choice - extreme
It’s a pretty easy measuring stick to follow.
Alabama outlaws abortion
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
Allowing people to have a choice - moderate
Not allowing people to have a choice - extreme
It’s a pretty easy measuring stick to follow.
Didn't take you long to delete my post objecting to being called a rape apologist while the original stands. Unbelievable. Is that what you call civil discourse? Will you let this post stand so people can draw their own conclusions or will this be covered up too?
Okay, I take it you understand we are talking about the economic development of a country here, not of individuals. So, are you saying people in poor countries should stop procreating?
It's depriving people of rights vs giving them more personal freedom.
Surely most Americans would lean towards the latter and call it a more positive or moderate course of action.
I supported my wife through a particularly difficult pregnancy, birth and post birth period. The effect on her health, both physically and mentally, were significant. I know not all pregnancies are like this and I know some can be more difficult. As a man, I would never presume I have the right to force or legislate that a woman go through with a pregnancy. This is just my view about me and I'm not saying men don't get a say in these things. But I do think there is something inherently wrong when, in the case of Alabama, these decisions about women's bodies are made by men.
If my wife were to become pregnant again, given what she previously went through, I would absolutely support her right to choose, and be opposed to any organisation or state that denied her this.
As an aside, I would also like to say that the extreme anti-abortion wing that exists in the USA and elsewhere are terrorists and should be treated as such, in my opinion.
If my wife were to become pregnant again, given what she previously went through, I would absolutely support her right to choose, and be opposed to any organisation or state that denied her this.
As an aside, I would also like to say that the extreme anti-abortion wing that exists in the USA and elsewhere are terrorists and should be treated as such, in my opinion.
That is how I understand the argument too. It's a legal minefield really. If you look at the first line of article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, "Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law." Who/what is everyone? Unborn or just born? Do I have to become a citizen before I am afforded the rights? It's such a grey area. I know in a lot of constitutions that have citizens rights the argument is that a person is not a person until they are born, which is a little crazy really when you consider it.
I think we've had this debate in loads of other threads but the legal time limit is too high, regardless of what side of the debate you're on. At 22 weeks, a fetus could survive at that age, and younger. I've seen a 20 week old baby and make no mistake, it is not a fetus, it is a baby...
Well, extreme describes a standpoint that can not really be exaggerated anymore. Moderate means it is a compromise. What you describe in your last sentence is essentially what has happened in Alabama. If the mother were to predictably die at childbirth is basically the only exception. If most people here prefer a similar solution as I do and which is implemented in a lot of european countries then that would mean being able to terminate a pregnancy up until a certain point of the fetal development usually between 12-24 weeks in I believe. This could be characterized as moderate sind an extreme would be to say a pregnancy can be terminated up until birth. Or to encourage abortions. No one here has really strongly argued for that so I would not claim our standpoints to be extreme.
Easy for you, that's fine but can we agree to disagree on your metrics?
You made a report that was twice rejected by more than one person.
Quit being precious about it.
So... removing choice = moderate...?
If ever you're on the wrong side of an accusation like that I hope you won't be precious.
Okay.
Is it possible to be personally pro life and be pro choice for the general population? Surely I can't decide for others as well
I honestly don't think it works like this. I kind of supported your original assessment of extreme and moderate but there are indeed choices I like to have removed. Like killing my neighbour, you know
I mean.. yeah. But we aren’t talking about thatI honestly don't think it works like this. I kind of supported your original assessment of extreme and moderate but there are indeed choices I like to have removed. Like killing my neighbour, you know
First, why do you say "surely"? If they leaned towards the former won't you call them an extreme bunch? (I'm not American, by the way)
When the Far Right wins elections in any country aren't they still referred to as extremists?
My point is that the notion of moderate vs extreme is a very subjective one.
Surely that is, by definition, pro-choice?
A person who would never have an abortion (and therefore that is only a woman) under any circumstances is perfectly within their rights to hold that ethical position. This person could, easily, however be for other individuals to have the choice. An individual who wishes to remove choice from the all people based on their perception of morality is not pro-choice.
That's simply pro-choice.
Absolutely, and it is a stance that I would greatly respect.
That’s what the pro-Choice argument truly is. You have the freedom to be “pro-_____”
Well, we started out from a comment I made on the abortion debate society in general, not restricted to this forum.
I think branding and messaging is important. Pro choice is now synonymous with baby killing but I'm sure a lot more religious people would be happy to be termed as pro life personally but just not for legal purposes
You call it "removing choice vs allowing choice"
I call it "allowing life vs terminating life"
See?
I say this because America is supposedly the land of the free, touting their societal freedom ad nauseam.
Both extreme right and extreme left are equally extreme. That's the feckwittery of extremism in general I can't wrap my head around. It's right there in the fecking word. On the topic of abortion though, there's nothing extreme about pro choice. It's not anti-life, it's not pro-choice, it's just pro-giving people the opportunity to terminate an unwanted pregnancy under certain circumstances.
I'm not American either by the way, but we're discussing Alabama here. At least I think so
Indeed. The term "pro-life" is deliberately misleading. Clearly, pro-choice does not equate with anti-life and pro-life does not, very demonstrably, translate from those who hold absolutist views on abortion to other aspects of life and society consistently.
Who would want to be seen as "anti-life"? Except the Night King and maybe Satan on a bad day.
Well then that comment is not really helpful is it? Especially it does not really pertain to the discussion we are having here since you are not addressing any of us obviously.
It's not like pro-choice people are against life. The term pro-life has simply been appropriated by that side of the argument and I think these terms distort the discussion somewhat. I'm sure there are women on the pro-choice side who would personally not have an abortion.
If you were to follow the logic of opponents of abortion then that is pretty much exactly what we are talking aboutI mean.. yeah. But we aren’t talking about that
Pro-choice inherently includes allowing life.
Ha! Fair point.If you were to follow the logic of opponents of abortion then that is pretty much exactly what we are talking about
I honestly don't think it works like this. I kind of supported your original assessment of extreme and moderate but there are indeed choices I like to have removed. Like killing my neighbour, you know
Actually, it's funny, I know @Swarm said it in jest, but that's exactly how I view this debate. I would like the choice to kill removed.I mean.. yeah. But we aren’t talking about that
Extreme logical extrapolation question: If a foetus crawled onto my property uninvited in Alabama would I legally be allowed to shoot and kill it?If you were to follow the logic of opponents of abortion then that is pretty much exactly what we are talking about
That's not the same and I hope you know that. Pro-choice does not equal against-life or terminating-life.
You view murdering a neighbor as morally equivalent to terminating a, let's say, 6 week pregnancy?Actually, it's funny, I know @Swarm said it in jest, but that's exactly how I view this debate. I would like the choice to kill removed.
If you suspect it of having a concealed firearm I am sure you would be well within your rights
I guess that kind of loops back to the double murder for shooting a pregnant woman bit. It all in some way or another boils down to the question of how many rights we appropriate to an embryo or a fetus in utero. In my opinion until a certain point it does not make sense for that "life" to take precedence over the wellbeing of the mother.
Quite. That'd be my view.If you suspect it of having a concealed firearm I am sure you would be well within you rights
I guess that kind of loops back to the double murder for shooting a pregnant woman bit. It all in some way or another boils down to the question of how many rights we appropriate to an embryo or a fetus in utero. In my opinion until a certain point it does not make sense for that "life" to take precedence over the wellbeing of the mother.
Edited as I cannot type.
I'm not the one who brought laws into it, he is.
You're welcome to your opinion.
Considering there's a pattern in that more developed countries have far less strict abortion laws than less developed countries I'd say there's a direct relation there. Developed countries are generally more inclined to implement more progressive laws than developing countries are, and enabling abortion is progressive, not regressive. Hardly a coincidence that we're discussion this in relation to probably the most backwards state in the US.
Well, yeah, maybe. I got drawn into this debate but initially I simply made a comment about the abortion debate in society at large.
Full scale attack on Roe V Wade at the moment .
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited:
I'll rephrase how I call it then: "Protecting all life vs Being allowed to terminate life"
Hope it's better understood now.
You've argued an incorrect point against a logical point. You did not win the debate. You did not control the language. You butchered it.
Sorry, I wouldn't like to get into this debate today. I have been drawn into it far too deep already. I didn't come into this thread for that. I think we're derailing the thread. I initially came in simply to point out that I didn't think this particular debate will be totally settled anytime soon as there are still many people with strong views on both sides (and between).