Only awful, impractical, draconian ones like “mandatory vasectomies for all men, who will henceforth have to keep sperm on ice until they’re ready for kids.”
Of course no one would want to live in a society where the government had such overbearing authority over men’s reproductive rights.
You’re right, especially when it comes to arguing on the internet. I think we’d actually find more common ground if we did this face to face, but obviously that’s logistically untenable.
What I encourage people to do, in lieu of a real time ‘debate’ where emotion often clouds the issue, is to seek out contrary opinions on your own. Don’t shrink from it, even if you’re sure you’re going to disagree with the topic. Most of what people on the far left or right see of the other ‘side’ is cherry picked, curated content that reinforces their beliefs without any attempt at context.
It’s very difficult to honestly move outside of your comfort zone which is why so few people actually do it.
Hmmmm…
Yes, I can: you should shut up now, and go get some life experience. People are are making some pretty basic points yet you have no idea what they’re talking about. The only thing you’re convincing anyone here of is that you’re a clueless mong. And dangerous with it because - assuming you aren’t personally hateful - you provide comfort and succour to those who are.
As you were asking for elaboration about Georgia.
The government there just enacted an anti abortion law that would put women in prison for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies among other awful things. Because “unborn babies”.
And really by that measure you can just go ahead an imprision all women as something like 30%+ of all pregnancies don’t even take/self abort all on their own in the first few weeks.
No. Because it is not men who die from being pregnant.
See, that hypothetical world of yours is not actually a hypothetical. If my mother had chosen a different man, I might not have a mother to wish Happy Mother’s Day to, yesterday.
When I was born, the doctors flat-out told her that another pregnancy would kill her. Not could, would. But before they could perform the operation to prevent that, they needed to get her husband’s permission. If he’d said “no, I want a bigger family, doctors don’t know everything”, they would not have performed the procedure.
Many of us don’t need to imagine the consequences. We have a mother, sister, aunt, or even ourselves that it’s happened to.
Well, you seem to be carrying an awful lot of water for the other side. Forgive that many of us if we don’t believe you.
ETA: “men” above = cis-men. Some men do carry the risk, but those who think that cis-women aren’t human enough to be allowed to save their own lives really, really aren’t interested in saving the lives of trans people.
That’s a lot of white straight Georgia men who won’t be living in a clean house, wearing clean clothes, eating home-cooked meals, remembering to send their moms birthday greetings, or having sex without having to pay because their wives and girlfriends are in prison. Just to point out the true horror of the situation to those few readers who are worried about America’s most oppressed group.
I’m gonna say that the law has no bearing on this since it’s a medical problem. Medical ethics nerds can debate it (and probably have). Making hamfisted legal declarations on topics which are in the realm of the medical is a really bad idea. Beyond informed consent and malpractice, the law needs to stay the hell out of the matter. Don’t like abortions? Then don’t have them.
It’s because Nazis don’t offer any kind of legitimate argument. They play around with absurdity because they don’t see their enemies as human. Go read a little bit about this before spouting nonsense like that. The only legitimate statement that can be said to a Nazi is “expect trouble if you plan on starting any.” Anything more is just a waste of time. You can’t debate with someone who deems you not human or worthy of moral consideration.
Re: debating Nazis, I regret that this is the example that’s gained so much traction because it’s not a good one. We can, as a society, decide what we will tolerate and what we will not tolerate, that’s true. But as I tried to illustrate in my response to @gracchus is that crowdsourcing morals and standards from the majority is problematic if you’re in an echo chamber. This is a problem on the left and the right, and rarely honestly addressed by either.
Mostly I’m just playing devil’s advocate because I see no dissenting opinions here and feel like there should be. I’m not trying to troll or intentionally upset anyone.
This is not appropriate. Folks come here to have intelligent conversations about topics that interest them, not to create imaginary debates at the whim of someone who feels the discussion could be more ”fair and balanced”.
This is the very definition of arguing in bad faith, and is bordering on driving trollies the entire forum. Do not post here again unless it is to discuss a topic from a position that you actually personally believe in. The members here are not your personal debate team.
No, it is true. You’re just wrong.
Stated Opinion: Nazis are bad.
Group Consensus: We agree, Nazis are bad.
Devil’s Advocate: But are they really, though?
Thank you.
the easiest way of stopping abortions while simultaneously eliminating birth control is… mandatory vasectomies.
would even stop spilling that seed.
funny how no one on the right is seriously discussing it.
Or just make all men wear chastity cages (NSFW).
The very fact that some people are talking about who is “culpable” – that is to say, who is to blame – for a woman becoming pregnant, speaks volumes about how distorted this whole issue has become.
It presupposes that some moral crime has been committed.
No, it does not.
To be very clear about this: the dichotomy of “treatment” vs. “encouragement” is false, and if you think that this is a valid position which should be discussed on a so-called marketplace of ideas, you are mad as fuck.
If it is your position, you should seriously try do understand what it means to be someone who wasn’t even allowed to exist, and still isn’t legally recognized as a person with all their usual rights in many countries.
Humans have an inalienable dignity. Their sexual identification is part of that dignity. You do not have a discourse about “treatment” of that. That road has been taken, and it goes to the abyss.
We talk about culpability because that’s the only thing the anti-choicers driving the “debate” understand. See my comment above.
In debating a point, you are making an implicit acknowledgement that that point is valid, and worthy of serious consideration. When the point that someone is making is that “person X should not exist,” or “person Y should be stripped of their rights,” it is very dangerous to lend it any validity.
