The US sucks because people like her take a couple bucks to fuck everybody else. What a scumbag.
The whole point of pro-choice is that there isn’t. Each pregnancy occurs in a unique set of circumstances, and only the person most directly involved should decide the outcome.
All your just-asking-questions seems aimed at setting up a complicated legal framework to control a woman’s decision, when pro-choice advocates are saying that it isn’t a matter for the law.
There you go.
18 Likes
The ‘answer’ is beyond easy;
Each person has complete agency over their own fucking body, including what goes into and what comes out of it.
Full goddamn stop.
19 Likes
11 Likes
No it isn’t. Abortion rights are the default. Technically nobody on the pro-choice has to do anything on the subject. It is the law of the land. It doesn’t require affirmative defense in of itself.
It is the fetus worshipers who take affirmative steps against that, use it as a campaign issue, and rely on political influence to subvert that existing law. Pro-choice is entirely reactive in nature.
There really isn’t any. You either respect the lives of people or you want to treat them as property.
11 Likes
You’re such an extremist, @teknocholer! What’s next, women getting paid the same as men? That’s a silppery slope… what about the rights of men who don’t want that? Huh? Do you ever think of them? BOTH SIDES ARE EQUALLY VALID!!! The women wanting full human rights and the men who want to stop that!!! /s
19 Likes
See! This is why women don’t deserve bodily autonomy or equal pay… we’re just TOO hysterical and emotional… and also… you know, the time of the month with all those hormones… I’m glad men are around to set me straight! BOTH sides are bad, both the women who want equal protection under the law AND the men who want to make us second class citizens again… Now. What about voting? /s
15 Likes
No probs. It’s what we’re here for. /s
(Should we split this off to an all-sarcasm thread before we get in trouble?)
15 Likes
Sorry, that’s just provably, laughably false.
Note who’s passing bills to enshrine women’s rights to choose what happens to their own bodies, and who’s passing bills to take that control away from them.
12 Likes
And if you do the numbers, that’s $20K a year, which is damn little for selling your soul.
4 Likes
For some people, that’s the difference between housing and the street, or eating and going hungry. 
12 Likes
Fair enough. I was focusing on the get out the vote aspect. But you are correct that some are trying to follow through. I went a bit far in implying no one was. I’d still say most are not following through in proportion to the amount of rhetoric they sling about. But I could be wrong on that too.
1 Like
Exactly that. It says a lot about the moral bankruptcy of the people paying her. “Let’s put her in a position where she can either survive and turn her life into a lie, or stand up for her truth and die.”
9 Likes
WHY ARE PEOPLE ARGUING ARGUMENTS IN AN INTERNET FORUM I DON’T UNDERSTAND
10 Likes
Mod note: enough actual people are living with real-live consequences of these decisions every day. Including, I guarantee you, people on this very forum. Literally none of them want, or care, about disinvested third parties posting generic talking point straw men to “play devil’s advocate” or otherwise spur discussion on this topic. This is very much the reason we have not posting generic talking points codified in our guidelines. The MSM already does a great job of ignoring the realities of the people making these decisions and instead considering hypotheticals. We have zero interest in adding to that here.
17 Likes
Same applies to the BBS.
13 Likes
See also “antifa and the fascists they protest: just the same?” and “massage parlour attack: is the perpetrator a victim?”
One thing I’ll give the MSM is that they’ve made an effort over the years to ensure that the people Just Asking Questions aren’t all privileged white-presenting males; the same can’t be said for the chin-strokers on BBS’s and social media going back decades. Also, a two-way medium means Internet forums have to deal with a stubborn stream of logical fallacies in follow-up support of all the JAQing off.
7 Likes
I think what it’s easy to do it say “there are messy edge cases and therefore it must be complicated.” But in every single example and case I have ever seen results in the same answer: abortion laws make things worse not better.
When you talk about abortion being banned in the third trimester except when the mother’s health is at risk, what is really happening is that you are weighing a boogeyman as more important than real consequences for people who don’t even want an abortion. Canada has no abortion laws that abortions past 25 weeks for no medical reason don’t actually happen in the real world when no laws exist to prevent them. We might as well have a law against having people remove healthy kidneys for no reason and throwing them away. That law would prevent nothing bad from happening, but it would inevitably cause someone, somewhere who really needs a kidney removed from having that procedure.
I mean maybe in this wide world of people there really is a person out there who intentionally gets pregnant just because they love to get abortions at 38 weeks because they enjoy the idea of killing things they regard as their own babies and that they find doctors who are on board with participating in medically unnecessary abortions at that stage. Okay, so that’s fucked up and that person is probably dangerous in other ways.
So let’s say we create some system to catch such cases where we create a test for abortions to ensure they cross some threshold of medical necessity. In Canada there are several hundred 25+ week abortions every year. Now this person is presumably willing to attempt to lie and deceive whatever system we have to weed them out. Tests have false positives and false negatives. A false positive in this case would mean saying a women who genuinely needs an abortion for her health can’t get one. How many of those are we willing to accept to catch our hypothetical sadist (who likely doesn’t exist)?
So I’m not really interested in “messy edge cases”. If there are real statistics showing that a public problem exists and an actual evidence-based approach to addressing that problem then that is a basis for creating an actual law.
You are here posting your opinion and disagreeing with other people, you might imagine their movtives for positing their opinions and disagreeing with you are similar to the ones you have.
But when it comes to opinion on public policy in a democracy, we have a stake in what other people think. Unjust laws that make people suffer bother me. I gave an example of being imprisoned for the improper disposal of miscarried fetuses. Unlike third trimester abortions for fun, that’s not hypothetical, it’s really happened in the United States. Thinking about that makes me feel angry. And so it makes me feel angry that people act there is something complex that is being ignored by the pro-choice position. Acknowledging the world is complex supports the idea of not making rules without evidence to support them. Like if I’m trying to argue that laws against drugs are systemically racist and harmful and someone tries to counter that with arguments about whether crack is bad for you. Yeah, it’s bad for you, but that’s not the point and real people are dying and going to prison because of our policy.
14 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
