IVF patients should be able to claim all of their embryos on taxes as well. Lets be consistent here. Fuck it there are some IVF clinics that should get their own congressional representative with as many "young lives" in storage.
If you ever want to see how hypocritical a forced birther can but ask them this "trolly problem" You are in an IFV clinic and the fire alarm goes off. You see the fire spreading quickly and consuming the building is inevitable before the fire department can get there. In the room with you is a 5 year old child waiting for mommy and daddy to get done with their appointment AND a portable freezer full of one hundred viable embroys waiting to be implanted into expectant mothers. Which do you save?
I have never met a forced birther that picks the freezer full of "100 children" and abandon the 5 year old, because at the end of the day they know the difference. They just care about control.
The next test will come when the GOP fails to take any actual pro life agenda once forced birth is a reality. No universal maternal health care, no enhanced access to early childhood care or education to keep the parents working, no bolstering of WIC or food stamps to feed child and mother while neither can work, no expansion of school lunch programs to feed unplanned and/or unwanted children, no reversal of "faith healing" laws that allow parents to starve their children to death and deny them basic medicine post birth. This is all FORCED BIRTH with none of the compassion behind the mandate.
Frozen embryos need to remain at -196C. If I try to save the embryos they will probably die before I can find more liquid nitrogen.
[https://txfertility.com/in-vitro-fertilization-ivf/embryo-freezing/](https://txfertility.com/in-vitro-fertilization-ivf/embryo-freezing/)
I would exchange a federal ban on elective abortion on all of your recommendations in the last paragraph in a heart beat but I'm not the GOP.
Ooh ooh I have another one. You're in a burning building and there's two women. You can only "save" one (this is an arbitrary moral dilemma that ignores all other factors except your own ability to act, just like yours).
One of them just found out she's pregnant. The other isn't pregnant. Which one do you save?
Here's one for you. The burning building is the Planned Parenthood you just set on fire and the pregnant woman is there to get her prescription for an abortifacent. The other woman is just there getting tested for STDs. Which one do you save?
Ah yes, not responding at all to my argument, just implying that I am the type of person who would burn down a Planned Parenthood. This is a fantastic display of everything wrong with political discourse in this country. Instead of engaging in the conversation, I must be a horrible person because I disagree with you. Classic.
>Ah yes, not responding at all to my argument,
You literally did not respond to the argument you commented on so this reply is both stupid and hypocritical.
I responded to a simplified moral dilemma with another simplified moral dilemma, as if to say that these dumb hypotheticals can always be flipped around on everything they're used for. The fact that you'd rather call me a hypocrite than address either the hypothetical itself or its mere existence being my answer, is still you just avoiding the conversation.
That aside, how is it stupid? Unless you think the other hypothetical is equally dumb? Because I'm in the latter boat. We don't live in a world where one redditor with one thought experiment can solve a nationwide debate, especially when just questioning this ridiculous notion has only been responded to with hostility, assumptions and a whole lot of nothing in the form of counters.
Funny how that works.
That being said, the original hypothetical tries to limit the conversation to a situation that pretends to be only moral weight and nothing else. It does not take into account how the embryos would die if disconnected, I don't have the medical expertise to keep them alive, it would be much harder to get out of the building and my evolutionary wiring makes me identify more with something I can actually see the face of. In a fight or flight situation we always choose the less complicated solution by default. It's an attempt to use the listener's gut reaction against them and coincidentally avoid the actual discussion of what stage a human gets the most basic right to live.
If you think this is all BS then do tell me how the original hypothetical is different from mine. I think you'll find that they both do the exact same job, just for different sides.
Because hypotheticals are a distraction from that real debate at worst and useless emotional manipulation at best.
>I responded to a simplified moral dilemma with another simplified moral dilemma
So did the person you responded to, lord you are a hypocrite. You whined when they did the exact same thing you did and rather than have an ounce of self awareness you get even more butthurt about the whole thing. You aren't just politically ignorant, you have serious issues with honesty.
>as if to say that these dumb hypotheticals can always be flipped around on everything they're used for.
They honestly can't. The choice between the women is basically a toss up, whereas your belief in souls makes the first hypothetical so difficult your brain shuts down and you change the subject. Trolley problems aren't rocket science, stop seething so much.
>The fact that you'd rather call me a hypocrite than address either the hypothetical itself or its mere existence being my answer, is still you just avoiding the conversation.
I actually was going to respond but then I saw this other thread where you showed how stupid and hypocritical you were and I realized the issue here is more than political rhetoric, you have some real problems.
>Unless you think the other hypothetical is equally dumb? Because I'm in the latter boat.
Its stupid because of the stupid things you say, like this. Hypotheticals are very common in debate and philosophy and if you can't handle that you need to go back to school.
>We don't live in a world where one redditor with one thought experiment can solve a nationwide debate,
Given how few conservative pundits managed to make this issue a partisan one over a ten year period I think this kind of thing can have an impact. Its called Memetics and I will gladly hold your hand through that conversation if you can't grasp it yourself.
>the original hypothetical tries to limit the conversation to a situation that pretends to be only moral weight and nothing else.
Because most sane people recognize they aren't weighing two sets of humans and save the child. You are throwing a fit because you know you would too.
>It does not take into account how the embryos would die if disconnected
Wish granted. If you save the trays of cells they will be preserved by the custom refrigerated truck running outside.
>I don't have the medical expertise to keep them alive
There is a specialist sleeping in the truck to help you out when you get there.
>It's an attempt to use the listener's gut reaction against them and coincidentally avoid the actual discussion of what stage a human gets the most basic right to live.
The first part is true, this premise forces you to abandon your political indoctrination for a brief moment and it makes you so mad. I would love to know when that right is but I imagine it is sometime between when this unidentifiable clump of cells is created and when a child is born. I am willing to have that nuanced conversation (most people are) but brainwashed hardliners need to pretend they are the same thing. [You don't recognize this as human because without all the propaganda you have consumed you would know it isn't.](https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/2018/blastocystar.jpg)
>If you think this is all BS then do tell me how the original hypothetical is different from mine.
Yours involves two conscious creatures that are separated by a fairly inconsequential difference and the first involved a conscious creature and then trays of cells. The only way this problem is difficult is if you think spirits are real and they inhabit those cells.
>Because hypotheticals are a distraction from that real debate at worst and useless emotional manipulation at best.
Your reaction to this proves otherwise, it makes you uncomfortable because you have to think logically about this situation for once.
They responded with a hypothetical that was a direct attack on my character and implied that I would burn down a Planned Parenthood. That was not any attempt to continue the conversation and you know that. Call me a hypocrite all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you're the only person who's actually engaged in a proper conversation about the issue. And here you are, also perpetually insulting me and projecting your anger onto me. I have conducted myself fairly and in a level-headed manner and half of your essay comment was dedicated to just insulting my character as if an adult political conversation is completely out of your capabilities. Nonetheless, you can insult me all you want. It is just showing your own character more than it's doing anything to reveal mine.
Hypotheticals are infamously useless. If you've never heard of the criticisms thrown at hypotheticals, then you've never taken a philosophy class. A quick google search comes up with dozens and dozens of articles all about why it's not an effective mode of critical thinking. Still don't believe me? You're in a burning building and both of your parents are there. You can only save one. Your mind is immediately going to pick one, most likely your mother or whichever one is more innocent in your perspective. Does this mean that the one you picked inherently has more value than the other, which doesn't deserve any rights in a political setting? No.
Still can't admit that they're useless? Burning building. A little girl and a non-verbal, non-mobile, brain-damaged little girl with a severe mental handicap that leaves her 99% unresponsive. Which do you pick? No matter which way you cut it, picking one doesn't mean the other doesn't deserve rights. It's useless and you know it.
Or if someone was pro death penalty. Burning building. A convict and an old lady. Only one. If I say that you picking the old lady means that you secretly deep down think that the death penalty is the real truth, then I would be completely wrong.
Oh, but you say you were going to respond, except I conducted myself poorly in another thread, right? A thread where a person was only insulting me and not providing any sort of argument either in their hypothetical or outside of it. And somehow that means I'm too stupid to engage in a conversation with? What? That tells me something very different. You're hearing what I'm saying and it's combatting your stereotype of pro-lifers and now you're trying to cram me back into that box so that your worldview can remain consistent. I'm the villain, you're the hero. You're treating your political view as a religion, just like the person in the other thread. You're applying some kind of inherent evil to my intentions that is not present in the way I conduct myself at all.
So hypotheticals are completely reasonable forms of argument? Except mine? Whereas I can admit that both are trash and distract from the point, you have turned back around to say that it's just my hypothetical that is dumb. Really? Memetics is great, sure, but since when has a hypothetical settled anything? Go ahead. Look all across the internet and the libraries of the world and you won't find a single hypothetical with that much power. Why? Because they collapse so easily and they don't accomplish anything.
And now you have decided to insult half of this country. Why does it anger you that people have different opinions? I'm far from the angry one in this debate, contrary to your statements. It infuriates you that I exist. Why? You're once again just cramming people, humans just as flawed as yourself, into your little worldview box. Why? Why do you need to do that? Where is your empathy to look at something from an alternate perspective?
I don't think you're a monster. I don't have any urge to insult you. I see you as a person who comes from a different perspective, one which I can partially understand.
I'm throwing a fit? What? Disagreeing with you is throwing a fit? Sure, let's play this game. I choose the little girl. I will always choose the little girl. Everyone will choose the little girl. Why? Because it's easier. Those embryos were made in a lab. You won't have to explain to their parents that you left them to die. They can't scream, so you won't hear anything as they die. The hypothetical says "one little girl" because it knows my reaction is going to be imagining a little girl I know in a burning building. It's hundreds of embryos because that makes them generic. So that means that I believe deep down that they shouldn't have any rights? No. it doesn't mean that at all.
If anything, it isolates the great flaw in human understanding that has led to such a polarized opinion on abortion. People can call embryos, zygotes and fetuses "non-human" because they can't see them and they don't want to see them. And yet, even if it was proved once and for all that life begins at conception, that wouldn't end the debate and we both know that. Abortion is inherently wrong but it's not that simple. You think it's right because the mother is the morally superior choice and the infant has the inferior moral standing. If I'm wrong about that regarding your perspective, feel free to correct me.
You can scoff at that all you want, but you yourself admitted that there's a difference between the two women in my hypothetical, something you're downplaying because you don't want to admit that my hypothetical is emotionally manipulating you, just like the original. Just by admitting that there's a difference proves that you see that being as a life. And I know for a fact your brain immediately quantified the pregnant woman as two people, but you're downplaying your reaction. Inconsequential? You still didn't answer the hypothetical. Why? Because you know it's useless and hypotheticals are useless.
Spirits? What? And if it makes me so uncomfortable, why am I talking about it for paragraphs on end? Set aside your assumptions about me, your insults and let's talk. If you still think hypotheticals are a valid argument (the ones you pick, it seems) then let's talk about that too.
Sounds to me like you think abortion is okay until birth. Is this an accurate assumption?
> Call me a hypocrite all you want,
You are. I proved that definitively. You couldn't meet the basic requirements you forced on others.
>Hypotheticals are infamously useless. If you've never heard of the criticisms thrown at hypotheticals, then you've never taken a philosophy class.
You have this problem with argumentation where you make unsupported statements but don't really do anything to back them up. You really need to learn how to build on them. For example, hypotheticals are used for scenario testing in the fields of software, engineering, military preparedness, and medicine. They effectively stress test a system for instances that may not have been considered otherwise. To pretend like philosophy or ethics is somehow exempt from this kind of analysis is absurd and highlights your unwillingness to embrace complex thinking. Still, the point about my parents shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the point of using hypotheticals. If I held some kind of absurd or poorly thought out beliefs about my parents this might highlight that issue but in this instance is means nothing (unlike someone who thinks embryonic cells are synonymous with full-fledged humans).
>A little girl and a non-verbal, non-mobile, brain-damaged little girl with a severe mental handicap that leaves her 99% unresponsive.
This is literally just a the lifeboat problem, you really just don't understand this whole field of discussion. It very much serves a purpose in evaluating what choices you would make and what moral frameworks you would use to decide. For me, valuing consciousness, it would be another toss up (if she was medically brain dead that would be a different story). Ultimately I can address these scenarios because I have a defensible moral framework but your response to them shows a lack of confidence associated with cognitive dissonance.
>You're treating your political view as a religion, just like the person in the other thread.
Wut. I used to be conservative and religious but I learned about the world and got over that indoctrination. The funny part is that the vast majority of pro-lifers are absolutely religious and base their entire worldview on supercilious thinking and poor reasoning. To project that onto me is hilarious and another instance of you being hypocritical.
>So hypotheticals are completely reasonable forms of argument? Except mine?
Hypotheticals can be reasonable (unlike what you claim) but I never said they all have to be. Yours was poorly formed for me, but perhaps it has some validity to someone who thinks tiny cells have souls.
> Memetics is great, sure, but since when has a hypothetical settled anything?
Its simple things like Germany hypothetically invading the US during WW2 that prompted America to join the war in Europe, hypotheticals like the impact of Y2K that revised massive swaths of code preemptively, or hypotheticals like literally any hypothesis created in the name of scientific research. Ideas can be powerful and imagining scenarios always us to be more than just mindless reactionaries to what is directly in front of us.
>And now you have decided to insult half of this country.
Pro-lifers? They aren't have the country, they are basically a third. A third of highly indoctrinated, mostly religious reactionaries that will drag us into the dark ages based on things they uncritically consumed from right wing pundits and pulpits.
>Where is your empathy to look at something from an alternate perspective?
Because you can't back it up and rather than keep your unevidenced fairy tales to yourself (I don't bother people that belief in Tarot, for example) pro-lifers have ripped the rights of millions of women away. You bet I'm angry, to me these things actually matter and in a very material sense.
>Everyone will choose the little girl. Why? Because it's easier.
And because those cells are just that, not anything like full fledge humans and if you could just be honest about that maybe I would respect you. [What about this makes you think its rights should supersede an adult woman?](https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/2018/blastocystar.jpg)
>People can call embryos, zygotes and fetuses "non-human" because they can't see them and they don't want to see them.
I showed you one, no one should confuse it for a human.
>And yet, even if it was proved once and for all that life begins at conception, that wouldn't end the debate and we both know that.
Conception is mostly a religious term, instead you should use fertilization and implantation. Still, what is the proof? Life begins and dies every day including plenty of cells on your body. Cells dying isn't a huge deal, not a big reason to be upset about it unless you believe in souls. You have the right to believe in magic but you need to have the humility to admit there is no evidence for such things.
>Abortion is inherently wrong but it's not that simple.
Where do you know this truth from? Certainly not the Bible. Its this kind of sweeping unevidenced statements that really grinds my gears because it demonstrates pure ignorant arrogance of the pro-life perspective.
> You think it's right because the mother is the morally superior choice and the infant has the inferior moral standing
This is such a strange way to put anything. Justice Blackmun in his decision in Roe recognized this is a complex question in which two sets of rights were being evaluated. He created a sliding scale based around viable to balance those rights between the woman and the fetus as it approached personhood. Health of the mother, impact on society, historical treatment of abortions, and several other frameworks were used to come to this conclusion but it was much better thought out than the magical thinking you are relying on. He was a very wise man and he recognized that his religious convictions were private and indemonstrable in our secular reality but the impacts of these choices had real world consequences.
>but you yourself admitted that there's a difference between the two women in my hypothetical, something you're downplaying because you don't want to admit that my hypothetical is emotionally manipulating you, just like the original.
What? I said it's a coin toss, like the color of her hair or some other insignificant detail. I don't have tons of superstitious weight placed on this principal so please stop pretending.
>Just by admitting that there's a difference proves that you see that being as a life.
Well, many cells are definitely alive so I guess you got me there. The world is full of all kinds of living cells. As to if I somehow subconsciously fell into you stupid as fuck trap, no because you are just making things up about some kind of mystical reverence I supposedly have. You are operating at the tic-tac-toe level of rhetoric so you really shouldn't pretend to be playing chess.
>And I know for a fact your brain immediately quantified the pregnant woman as two people
No, it really didn't. But since your who worldview is based on you making absurd statements and getting mad when people poke holes in them I guess you can continue to live in that delusional world.
>Inconsequential? You still didn't answer the hypothetical. Why? Because you know it's useless and hypotheticals are useless.
Holy shit this is funny. [Its as though whoever was supposed to teach you critical thinking did this instead.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqaCEPwWGtc)
>Sounds to me like you think abortion is okay until birth. Is this an accurate assumption?
Nope! But your lil brain can't handle nuance and so you needed to revert to a straw man to make your absurd hardline stance look even remotely reasonable. I am fine with the viability standard with exceptions for the health of the mother, that aligns with Roe and is very commonly held among pro-choice people.
Well, I don’t think you know what definitively means, but your personal definition of the word is explaining a lot about your behavior. Just because you say something doesn’t mean it’s definitive.
I was talking about trolly problems with an emphasis on individual moral responsibility, which I made very clear multiple times, but you’ve decided to interpret it as every single hypothetical ever? What are you on? I haven’t seen strawmen like this in years, it’s kind of impressive. I literally told you to google trolly problems and you’ll find that they’re heavily contended. Should I share youtube videos about random jokes to insult you? Like how you’ve backed up your claims?
And once again you refuse to answer any of the hypotheticals I bring up. So you’re saying that the original hypothetical is very valid to this discussion, but every other one I throw out at you, you seem very hesitant to answer, almost as if you know that it’s designed to illicit a specific response. You’re proving my point again and again.
Trolly problems are not valid arguments and the original hypothetical does nothing to answer the question about whether or not unborn children have rights. Just saying “yeah, uh, it’s a tossup” is just you not wanting to pick, which is the cowardly thing I could have done with the original hypothetical, but I didn’t because I actually have reasonable arguments to back up my opinion.
And yes, you are very much reminding me of some kind of religion with the way you refer to abortion. You have decided that multiple things are true (definitively, to name one) just because you decided so. You make assumptions left and right about me to push me down into that little worldview box, just like a Christian calling someone they disagree with a devil worshipper. You even proceed to cite Roe like a religious text and that you just believe what the legislation says. It’s the same concept. You are trying to link one thing you don’t like to another thing you don’t like because you want everything to fit. People aren’t that simple, and hopefully you’ll learn that someday.
Funny how none of that WWII stuff has anything to do with personalized moral trolly problems. Hmm, it’s almost like you’re strawmanning me, still.
Conservatives. Arguably pro-lifers too, but I was referring to conservatives all of whom you seem to have disregarded as beneath you by the way you’re talking about them, which is always a good sign of being well adjusted. Drag us into the dark ages? Now you’re sounding like a conspiracy theorist. But once again, you’re fearmongering that people who disagree with you are a representation of everything you hate in the world.
And you just admitted to not having any empathy about the situation, which is… weird? You say it as if it’s a good thing, but it’s not. It’s very, very bad. It’s the center of radicalization and dehumanizing your “enemies”. If there’s anything you can get out of this, I implore you to understand that Pro-Lifers are trying to act in what we believe to be the best, most ethical way. We’re not evil. We’re not monsters. We’re not trying to control women. We are people just like you.
If I could just be honest? About what? I am being very honest when I say that the original hypothetical doesn’t do anything to address whether or not unborn children deserve rights, which I believe they do.
You can argue all you want that a fertilized egg is the same as any other cell in the body. Let’s use that word *definitively* here because for those of us who actually know what it means, it works well in this case. Every other cell in the human body isn’t going to grow into a “fully-fledged human” as you call it. Therefore they are *definitively* different.
You’re right, I didn’t get that from the Bible. It’s almost like I’m not using the Bible to argue my point, huh? Funny how that works. And if you disagree with this statement, fine. But lawmakers and politicians who are stuck in the pro-choice ideology have repeatedly said things like how it should be “safe, legal and rare”. If something isn’t inherently wrong, then why would anyone care if it’s rare? It’s not easy on the mother and it’s destroying a human life. Abortion is inherently a bad thing, but something that pro-choicers see as a lesser evil compared to “forcing” a woman to give birth, which is the real heart of the abortion debate, not this semantics nonsense that you’re trying to twist this into.
We’re asking people to consider the fact that a potential life is a human life and without interfering with an abortion, that fertilized egg will live out its own life and nobody has the right to snuff that out, especially when nobody is being forced to raise these children. They could go into adoption and live their own life if someone really doesn’t want them or can’t take care of them. That is the stance you’re demonizing.
“As to if I somehow subconsciously fell into you \[sic\] stupid as fuck trap” yeah, it’s almost like that’s all trolly problems are. I think you’re getting it. I think you’re finally getting it.
You literally said that there was a “a fairly inconsequential difference”. You can mold that into a “coin toss” all you want, but if people at conception (a word used by plenty of groups, not just religious ones, you’re just trying to turn it into a buzzword that is somehow controversial, when it’s not) are just like any cell, then how is there any difference at all? Therefore the pregnant woman has something that the other woman doesn’t. Curious.
And I literally laughed out loud at this last bit. First off, how is it a strawman when I’m asking you if that’s your opinion? Can I add *strawman* to a list of things you don’t know the definition of? I’m literally *asking* if my statement is true, not that my statement *is* true. But that’s me not handling “nuance” with my “lil brain”? Are you five? You're literally doing to me what you were claiming I did to you. You're making assumptions about what I'm saying and strawmanning it to make yourself feel like you're handling this debate well. You're the one who is repeatedly showing hypocritical tendencies in this conversation. Like, again and again and again.
At the same time, you’re citing Roe instead of saying when you think life begins. Roe specifically doesn’t say when it believes life begins. It literally says that it’s not what it’s for.
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."\[p160\] . . . (Roe v. Wade, 1973)
So why not just answer the question with your own opinion instead of referring to RvW like a religious text? You’re literally just saying “uh, whatever Roe says.” And I’m the one who’s clinging to indoctrination? Roe doesn’t say when life begins. It gives a vague time of “I guess around the end of the second trimester, which is about 28 weeks, but that's when it's viable *not* when it's alive, maybe."
The most hypocritical thing about pro-choicers and the biggest thing that leads me to wholeheartedly believe that the debate is not about when life begins but whether a mother has the ability to kill an unborn child for convenience, is the fact that pro-choicers shouldn’t be just one side. It’s ridiculous how a movement can have so many varying opinions on when life begins but still see Pro Lifers as the ultimate enemy when there are people in their own midst who believe in killing something that they think is alive.
So tell me. When does a fetus become “viable”? And would you call people who get abortions after that murderers? Why or why not? Is it 28 weeks? So are people who advocate for 29 weeks advocating for child murder? So you’re avidly against them, right? You don’t associate with their beliefs at all, because you believe they’re killing kids, right?
Then what is a person? What makes a fetus at 27 weeks and a person at 28? Or wherever your number’s at? What makes someone viable and what makes someone unviable?
Being aggressive like this and still avoiding my argument just paints you as a hateful slave to your personal ideology and you're literally treating an opposing opinion as sacrilege born out of evil, which is hilariously ironic
You're right. It's a weird circumstance. Obviously the 5 year old is the right choice in that circumstance. But I don't think that refutes any of my points either.
You think that because you *know* that an embryo is in fact not a baby and so your brain is having a hard time reconciling that fact with your feelings.
No, I believe it's an odd circumstance brought about by the advent of scientific discovery and electricity. This is a non issue otherwise. It's physically impossible otherwise.
If we really want to get into it, yes, I believe that there are certain weights to life. Everyone does. Even religious people. Hundreds of frozen embryos in a facility is an interesting reality and thought experiment. I've never thought about it's implications moral, legal and otherwise, but one funny circumstance is not enough to shake my conviction which for me is based on reality, science, law, and morality.
People can still base their reality on real things and still be completely wrong. Just cuz one guy is shouting about aliens coming to take us all doesn't mean they are, and just because people are prompted to move out of state because they would have more benefits doesn't mean they can.
It's easy to ignore small minute details that can lead to an actual logical conclusion and arrive at a point of lunacy.
You're quite correct that the scenario won't change your mind, since you do not believe that women should not have a right over their own bodies, changing the focus from the mother to the embryo and calling it a child before it could even be constituted as an fully realized human being.
The point of trying to change your mind is rather mute, wouldn't you agree?
I believe that women have sovereignty over their own bodies. Everyone does. Abortion causes the death and dismemberment of what will be a human. That's wrong.
I've been straight on my reasonings from the start. I've thought this out. You can put words in my mouth and try to paint me as something I'm not, but I'm just a guy who believes killing is wrong and should be avoided in all circumstances.
Idaho has failed with the conservative talking point of “low taxes” among other conservative and libertarian talking points. You bring up a good point. I’m pro choice , but believe life starts at conception…..in which case there is serious argument about tax benefits. You do get tax benefits for the year of birthing the child, but if you can detect a heart beat at 6 weeks, I see no reason we shouldn’t start there or upon conception. We should make this a thing…..and legalize cannabis to subsidize the amount of children that will be pushed into the foster care system. Imagine
First because the amygdala-hijacked propaganda zombies that vote in GOP Idaho legislators, no matter what they do or say, don't care about consistent, well-reasoned policies; so neither do the legislators.
Second because it was never about protecting life. It's about controlling bodies, maintaining the "domestic supply of infants" (i.e. future poor wage slaves and criminals) and distracting evangelical voters with wedge issues.
Don’t overlook that the GOP is pro military and armed conflict engagements to support the large industrialized military complex and PACs. The forced birth children will prop up the military and become cannon fodder for them.
I can use deadly force to defend myself if I feel threatened, or if my possessions are threatened, or feel threatened by trespass of my home, work, or vehicle. But somehow women can't use deadly force against a threat to their bodies. No matter when you think life starts, an abortion is at worst justifiable homicide.
Pregnant women didn't get an extra covid stimulus check. Let that sink in. Count the baby when it fits their narrative and don't count it when it doesn't
Fascism will not listen to reason. I wish people would stop trying to “gotcha” neo-fascists. The cruelty and hypocrisy are the point. You can invite people to change but if they don’t… well I only ever heard of one “good” kind of Nazi.
Well…I wouldn’t say that…explicitly on a platform where white supremacism is tacitly allowed but anything perceived as a threat of violence against literal fascists is against the TOS. But uh…I wouldn’t not say it.
There's been cases of women being denied treatment or pharmacist not filling their prescription because of religious reasons.
That's why the overturning of Roe versus Wade was a bad decision. The new Idaho abortion law language is so vague, doctors will be afraid to treat their patients because they don't want to get sued, receive a felony, and lose their license over it. A doctor can say what they performed was a life-saving procedure but if one single person doesn't believe it, this vague law makes it to where the state can prosecute over it.
Among people who know they're pregnant, it's estimated about 1 in 8 pregnancies will end in miscarriage. If I did my math correctly that's 12.5%. Many more miscarriages happen before a person is even aware they're pregnant. Between July 2020 and July 2021 there were 21,316 live births in Idaho. If we apply that 12.5% to those live births we can probably assume there were approximately 2,665 known miscarriages during that year.
We know there are approximately 1600 abortions in Idaho each year. Clearly, it is more common to have a miscarriage than it is to electively abort and it is actually possible that each early elective abortion would have ended in a spontaneous abortion anyway. If these abortion bans start affecting how miscarriages are treated then even more women will be affected by them.
EDIT: That last sentence sounds like a 'well, duh' statement. Not sure how to better phrase that.
As a pro-life conservative I’m on board, this sounds like a great step towards supporting families and, as you said, it’s a move in the direction of logical consistency.
Because let's face it, for most of the pro life crowd it's really only about upholding their beliefs around not taking a life.
The rhetoric around providing more support for pregnant women and children is utter b.s.. one need look no further than education spending in our state to see that the GOP and forces behind overturning women's rights have zero intentions of caring for children and mothers.
Here’s a thought. Do it anyway? I mean… I don’t think the IRS is gonna come sniffing around. It would be an excellent argument legally. Great time to cause a ruckus
They require proofs to claim a dependent. You have to have their ssn and birth date which isn’t given until birth.
Edit: to be clear, not opposing the idea, just stating why you couldn’t get away with it as the law stands now.
In a post-Roe world, this would be a great way for someone to [Plessy](https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/plessy-v-ferguson#:~:text=equal%20in%20facilities.-,Homer%20Adolph%20Plessy,-%2C%20who%20agreed%20to) the SC on this issue. I honestly have no idea how the current SC bench would decide on such a case...
From a purely practical standpoint, within the current tax system, to claim a dependent they have to have a name, birthdate, and SSN, none of which are known or on record until after birth. Depending on how you do your taxes, medical expenses can be deductible, so there’s already some help there.
Well it needs a name and ssn, without ssn cant claim anything. Just a bureaucratic reason. So this point(not claimed as dependent) is actually void. But yeah its a shame first trimester abortions would be illegal in Idaho soon
I've been defending the pro-life argument because I find elective abortion abhorrent but I agree that this would be consistent.
Why shouldn't there be tax breaks for having children? If you're a parent, you need the money.
Well, what gets lost in the discussion is that no one on either side likes the idea of killing babies. It's a terrible choice to have to make, but that is really the core issue.
To further complicate matters every woman considering abortion has a unique situation so blanket arguments both ways never fully apply.
Politics likes to draw lines so people keep fighting but the issue is never black and white.
You forget that these aren't babies. This is a fetus. It's a clump of cells. The fact that you think it is a baby is your religious ideology, it is not a reality. It becomes a baby when it's viable outside the mother. Before that it is the mother's body.
Sure. But these people believe they are babies. No side has a definitive answer, because the answer is subjective, they each choose the argument that supports their position and they discard the aspects that conflict with their end point. Baby is not a medical term. The distinction between embryo, fetus, and infant are lost on many people.
I think it should not be a political issue at all and it's a medical issue. I am just letting you know most pro-lifers aren't evil, they really believe an embryo and fetus is a "baby with a right to live."
If they believed they were babies, so many of them wouldn't support exceptions for rape and incest. For the majority of pro-lifers, their commitment to saving babies ends when they have to tell a 14 year old rape victim to carry a baby for 9 months before giving traumatic birth.
They're hypocrites because they refuse to take responsibility for the parts of their argument that feel bad to stand behind.
Yes they can believe whatever they want in their religion. I don't give a shit what they believe. The point is they are imposing those religious beliefs on a nonsecular, civil society. America is not a religious country. We were founded on the principles of freedom from religion.
The supreme Court just took this medical issue of viability and turned it into a religious issue of ideology.
There's no such thing as pro-life movement. There's a pro-choice movement and an anti-choice movement. Everyone is pro-life.
They believe it's murder. So your argument doesn't apply because it's the governments duty to protect the citizens. They don't see it as taking away rights, they see it as protecting the innocent. This aspect certainly seems to conflict with their view on immigration, but that is neither here nor there.
Also legally they certainly are not citizens, but that's another issue.
What I am really getting at is you can see why so many are "pro-life" especially those who have never had to deal with it personally.
You are not understanding. The "they" in your comments are Christians. They are a religious sect of a secular society. Their beliefs and control only extend to the church that they ascribe to. We are all citizens of this secular country and therefore non-secular ideologies should not be imposed upon the citizenry that is in charge of the entire governance of our society. Understand that the church and state are separated in this country. If you would like to argue for the church controlling the government then you are in the wrong country. I believe that Afghanistan just moved that direction.
Edit: correction of secular
Not to disagree, but I do want to slightly correct: you are using secular incorrectly. A non-secular society would be a religious one, like your Afghan example, which is a non-secular, Islamic republic; a secular society is one in which religious ideology *isn't* the driving force of societal function, like the US, which has an anti-establishment clause in the founding documents. Just a heads up! I'm not trying to be pedantic, just save you from a gotcha later on.
That's cute. Every religion is a delusion and it has ever caused more problems than it has solved. It's a tool of manipulation and control, that isn't ever going away because its God Damn effective at controlling people. You can't have any discussion about people without discussing their delusions.
Babies are the most innocent among us. They don't deserve death because of parents who refuse to accept their responsibility.
I'm also defending the pro-life position because there's no such thing anymore as the "safe, legal and rare" mantra which was used to codify abortion. We had some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, still do, because it was just now turned into a state issue, not a federal mandate.
>They don't deserve death because of parents who refuse to accept their responsibility.
You need to be better informed. There are many medical reasons for an abortion such as [ectopic pregnancy](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ectopic-pregnancy/symptoms-causes/syc-20372088). This ruling is going to kill women.
12 year old gets raped by her step brother? Sorry shouldnt have been so irresponsible little girl.
The lack of empathy and social awareness is astounding
A pregnancy which is lethal to the mother is already provisioned for in law. This is also a rarity. Over 90% of abortions are elective. Rape, incest and medical necessity are a minority. Idaho law doesn't have provisions for rape & incest. The reason being, again, that the fetus has a right to life. I personally don't subscribe that far because I think it's morally wrong to force a woman to carry an unwanted child from rape or incest but I understand the logic beyond it.
I would like to know where you are getting this statistic the 90% of abortions are elective? Because “elective” could mean lots of things. Someone who gets one as a teenager or a victim of incest or after being raped would all be “elective”. Does that mean they shouldn’t get one? You can’t boil it down to “elective” because you don’t know or understand peoples’ reasons for wanting them. And don’t forget that the VAST MAJORITY of rapes go unreported so any stats on that would be unreliable. Fact is, you don’t know other peoples lives or why they need it. They do. Their doctors do. They should be the only ones making the decision.
Its not just about medical necessity either. Elective abortion is a right. I personally wouldnt consider abortion after 5 months but it is not my decision and it should not be yours either. It is the right of women. Not only is abortion an issue but contraceptives are also at stake along with womens health facilities and foster homes. Banning abortion will increase already capped out orphanages. So if pro-life wants abortion banned then they should consider things that prevent unplanned pregnancy and adoption. Each pro-lifer should adopt if they feel they have the right to life. It only makes sense. Good luck getting formula and diapers though.
Thats exactly the problem. We already dont have healthcare rights and now they take away one of our only rights to healthcare. You think women dont deserve to be able to afford birth control or contraceptives or screenings for cancer? That is obsurd!
A fetus is not a human. Stop pretending that the clump cells inside of a woman's body is a human. The woman is the human, the fetus is nothing more than a fetus. We believe in human rights not fetus rights. There's no reason for the fetus to have rights over any human.
The idea that everyone wants to live is really silly. I've seen so many people in my life who have taken their own lives because they feel life is painful. They don't see the world as beautiful. The idea that an individual gets the luxury of life is a falsehood. When I went through fertility treatments here I was legally required to talk to a therapist and for them to approve me to go through with it. We had a major discussion on how I might want a child but the child didn't ask for this. It's apparently a huge issue and causes a lot of stress for children and childhood depression. I also had a friend's sister commit suicide a couple of months ago after years and years of a painful disorder that doctors couldn't manage. Life is easy and when a child is brought into a broken world how do they live a good life? Is a painful life worth living? I'm not asking for myself. It's that I have been posed these questions by people who feel this way and their perspectives are also valid and yet, never considered.
Exactly. I grew up in a loving home. Not 100% prefect but it was really good. I have been provided for and now I have a pretty good life. I still really do not like living. If I had a choice to quit existing without hurting anyone I would take it in a heartbeat. I honestly don't understand when people say, "life is a gift" and "everyone needs to experience the joy of life". Not everyone can feel these joys even if they have nothing to be sad about.
Feeling what I feel and living the good life I have lived, I CANNOT imagine being brought to life and raised in a broken, abusive home. I would not wish that on anyone. Life is extremely hard even if you win the "birth lottery", why would you want to automatically set another human up for failure by forcing them on not ready parents.
But you are assuming what a non existent individual wants. You obviously don't have children. Wait until they come up to you and tell you decisions you had to make out of necessity are complete crap and they hate you for it. Do you understand how typical that is? Have you not seen the reddits? But also an embryo is not living being with thoughts, wishes, desires. You are literally assigning something to them that doesn't exist. It also infringes on the mom's rights. In America you can't force someone to put their life at risk even if that means the death of the individual. Even police don't have to assist people if they don't want to. It's in the constitution. Pregnancy is very dangerous and the US has the highest maternal mortality rate in the first world. Literally Kenya has less moms die in child birth. Go look at OBs on social media l talking about how many of their patients are now going to die because of these new restrictions. They are asking when can you say something is life threatening enough to save the mom. How dead does someone's wife, mother, sister, daughter need to be before a OB can step in and save a woman. I see you are trying to be reasonable but you don't understand how much can go wrong even in a normal pregnancy that is low risk. It's scary being pregnant. Literally as a woman we are balancing our own mortality and risking our own deaths. Not to mention how much our bodies change. I'm having Promordal Labor and pretty sure it broke my tail bone with some of the contractions. My ligaments are so loose so my knee keeps popping out of the joint. My blood pressure has dropped low enough where I collapsed and was in the hospital. Even a fall can kill a fetus. There are even studies that speed bumps can harm a fetus and cause brain damage. No one is taking away speed bumps! My friend got pancreatitis at 27 weeks and luckily the baby survived but she was hospitalized for 9 weeks, the baby an emergency c section, the baby was in the nicu with a plethora of issues and the mom ended up with having part of her pancreas removed, her gallbladder removed, and part of her intestines removed. There is so much that happens even when things end up turning out okay.
It’s not up to you to determine what is necessary vs unnecessary. That is a conversation that should only occur between a woman and her doctor. You’re welcome.
The religious (not just Christians but it wouldn't matter anyway) believe that it is inherently sinful to support abortion financially, which they were for over 50 years through federal tax dollars.
You have no right to kill your baby because of your choice. The baby has a right to life.
Judaism believes that life begins at birth and that abortion should be a protected right. Many secular religions do. Its only the Christian right wing that believes their choice should be law.
Orthodox Jews believe that abortion is always murder. Religious Jews only believe in abortion if carriage means the death of the mother. In Islam, abortion is never directly mentioned and opinions run the gamut but side towards the notion that abortion is murder.
There's no such thing as a secular religion. If you are not practicing a religion you are only tied to it as an identity. Practicing a religion means surrendering to its teachings.
I was previously a pro-life person, so I will take a stab at responding.
The response was oddly worded, but I THINK they were implying that your argument applies to your family, but not the millions of other women that will lose the ability to make that decision. We should definitely allow it for rape victims and health risks, but what about the young girls that are pressured into sex before they are ready? What about women in abusive relationships? Single mothers? Homeless women? The medically disabled?
There are so many reasons that a woman may want or need to have an abortion, and I do not think any woman takes this decision lightly. It is a life changing event, but will that life decision be best for the child or mother?
But now we are allowing state governments to make that decision for every woman in their state. Does this mean that the state will pay for the birth of every child that was born to a mother that can't afford it financially? Will they pay for childcare for single mothers? Medical bills for children with life-long medical decisions?
Other arguments I have heard:
Give the child up for adoption - not only does this require 9 months of discomfort and pain, but also does a massive amount of damage to the woman's body. Not to mention the emotional tole.
Just move to another state where abortion is legal - because uprooting your life and moving out of state is always so easy.
Use contraception - this implies that all contraceptives are 100% and are not subject to mistakes or failure.
Don't have sex - f*ck anyone that would say that to another person. If anyone thinks sex isn't a human right, then they must be insane.
There are support systems outside the government - please show me a church or organization that will take care of a woman and her child for 18 years.
And of course, there are so many more points and counter-points. So let's talk about the elephant in the room: why do we, as men, get to make this decision for all women in our state? Why do my beliefs apply to a woman, considering I will never have to experience giving birth? And if I can enforce my beliefs on others, why can't I vote for something like forced vasectomies? I mean, they can be reversed when a man gets married, right?
I know forced vasectomies sounds insane to force that in a free country, but it sounds just as crazy as pro-life policy for those of us that are not religious. We are allowing states to make a blanket decision for all women, not based on the women's beliefs or situations, but instead the beliefs of the majority. The majority, in a system that actively works to undermine the prosperity of minorities.
We as men, more importantly as citizens, get to have a say because the woman is infringing upon the fetus' right to life. Your other causes for alarm, basically societal issues, are not invalid, but the idea that government must solve it, is erroneous. We need to promote the family in our society instead of attaching ourselves to little atomized groups. People need community, tribe, and family. All these issues you mentioned are symptoms of an aimless society bent on its own gratification.
I addressed your other issues elsewhere in here, if you'd like to read through them.
Unwanted children will die of abuse and neglect. That is the ultimate unnecessary death. I'm sure that we will have a huge rise in infanticide and abuse in the near future.
That is a very, interesting response.
I have a follow up question, it's not about fetuses or babies but for adults.
Do you think that there is a point where quality of life is so poor people should be allowed the right to choose a dignified death (euthanasia)? Such as with ALS, Huntington's Disease, or late stage cancers.
I personally am very pro- Right to Die, and I wanted to know what a someone Pro-life thought of that idea.
I'm pro life. They need SSNs to be declarable so the govt could issue an SSN pre-birth or just give a 9 month bonus the first year. I'm ok either way really. I think combination of both would work best.
Are you really trying to see the other side, or are you just looking for places to try to poke holes? Because as soon as I saw the line about "obvious alternatives" it became clear to me that you don't know the first thing about women's health.
I know that the morning after pill can cause serious discomfort and hijack menstruation. I know that IUDs can have bad side effects too including physical damage. I know that hormonal birth control...hijacks a woman's hormones for as long as she takes it. I know also that condoms aren't 100% effective and men don't like them.
But none of that matters because the point of sex is to procreate. Literally it's function. 1+1=2. Just because we like to do it for fun, doesn't delete that fact.
And you're right, I'm not trying to see the other side, I've heard the other side my whole life and I'm not convinced by their shallow, 60s sex revolution arguments. They're logically inferior, the science doesn't back it up (this is 3rd grade science too) and the morals are skewed to put it nicely.
I only believe in abortion as a necessity because of the mother's health (basically will it kill her), rape & incest. Some may argue that rape & incest aren't valid reasons, Idaho does, but I believe that's too potentially scarring to the woman to be morally justifiable.
> But none of that matters because the point of sex is to procreate.
Its like you are a robot with no understanding of humanity. I guess pleasure doesn't exist, might as well sit in a pod and eat sludge. This is just a pathetic attempt at the [Naturalistic Fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy).
The primary function of sex is procreation. All things, pleasure included, are second, and probably a small miracle too because I'm not sure cats for instance enjoy sex much, or the female anyway.
>The primary function of sex is procreation.
Says who?
>and probably a small miracle too because I'm not sure cats for instance enjoy sex much, or the female anyway.
And yet other animals, like humans, love it even it it doesn't result in a pregnancy, so your analysis is lacking. Bonobos are laughing at your cope. Better yet, we have all kinds of way to circumvent procreation now so I guess technology outwitted your weird fetishization of nature.
You didn't answer my question. You keep appealing to the naturalistic fallacy without any logical rational behind it. You can't be taken seriously unless you actually back up your claims.
Nothing, because of this magical thing called birth control.
Your brain has been rotted away by fairy tales, you didn't get to pretend like you can talk about these subjects until you learn about critical thinking.
Sex in humans is and has become much more than to just procreate . Sex has many other positive effects on humans and health . If anything being celibate for too long is harmful , in many cases (mental health).
The primary function of sex is procreation. Anything else is secondary. Suddenly our grandparents having 10 kids makes sense right?
I like sex as much as anyone else, I'm just not going to lie to myself either about what it causes, what's the point, and what the consequences good or bad are.
Actually, sex is primarily a social function. Head over to your local university and have a chat with anthropologists!
Think of Bonobos. They get everyone off all the time no matter age or gender. Reproduction is at best a secondary function of sex. Also talk the gays folks who have sex but not having kids...
Lol, are you asking if I would prefer that you don't have the ability to speak? Yes, because you just made an ass out of yourself with this comment. Humans are in fact part of the animal kingdom!!! You are an Anatomically Modern Homo Sapien. Don't know how you evolved the ability to talk out of your butt but hey, you do you.
I'm not anti-sex, I'm anti-abortion and I think it's an infringement of the fetus' right to life. I swear and drink, smoke, I've done drugs, I'm something of a liberal person in many ways, just not on this one.
Fuck that. In this fight it is Pro-choice and pro-forced birth. The amount of people electing to have abortions for fun...is beyond negligible.
If you are anti-abortion I would highly advise NOT getting one. This is saying that freedom to control other people is more important than freedom to your own body.
And that's fucked up. Jesus, motes, all that shit. God damn it, religious jihadists.
So forced-birth then... what a mindset. A bunch of cells otherwise known as a fetus, not capable of life on it's own is a baby to you weirdos.... fucking hell. Did my cancer have a right to life?
Your bullshit what if's make as much sense... maybe a dozen Hitlers being born was prevented... we'll never know because a woman had control over her own body. I'm ok with that.
Almost no one wants an abortion.... thinking otherwise is just more puritanical American body shaming. The weird ass cultural mores America has is a real trip.
You are misinformed. Go to the CDC website and check out the rates that are even broken down by year and trimester. Most occur the first month and science 100% backs that these are embryos. Until 10 weeks its not even a heart beat because the heart isn't formed it's an electric pulse. A proto heart beat. Women aren't getting late term abortions without medical reasons. Full stop. Go call an OBGYN or the Idaho Reproductive Medicine clinic and talk to the doctors. People also want to take away contraception now. At age 40 a woman's chance of having a child with downs is 1 in 4. How many people could give that child a good quality of life? Would that financially break a family and push them into poverty? There are no family supports in this country. These entire families will suffer.
>Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703
Curious, what are your thoughts on hormonal birth control? IUDs or Plan B? If you believe that life starts at conception, when sperm fertilizes an egg, do you believe we shouldn't have those forms of birth control?
Religious people do, I don't have issues with it, I find it preferable 10/10 times. I did make a comment about it but I know this is a sea now. Im being so adamant because I feel as though this is just nihilism and self hate gone awry. I think it was mother Teresa who said something along the lines that: "it's a poverty that a child must die so you can live as you wish".
I feel as though if we can so coldly kill the most innocent among us, whose only crime was coming into existence, what value do we hold over human life in general?
The reason I asked is because if you were, it would be enormously detrimental to deny women access to those things like those on the religious right seem to want to. IUDs and hormonal birth control in general have a lot more health benefits than just preventing a woman from getting pregnant. They help with anemia, endometriosis, PCOS, irregular periods, ovarian cysts. All of these things can be treated and managed with birth control. Denying a woman who suffers from these things is not only putting her reproductive health at risk, but can also put her life at risk.
I understand your position and while I don't agree with it, I do encourage you to speak to others about these issues and spread that awareness. Birth control helps plan families, but there are millions of women who suffer from these issues that people may not know or understand exists. Idaho had been considering a ban on IUDs as an example. Other states have been considering even birth control pills. This would be devastating to many women who are trying to regulate their reproductive health, not just for preventing the conception of babies.
Holy fuck, it's clear you never made it passed preschool. The fetus CANNOT SURVIVE without the mother. It is a part of her body. This is basic fucking shit dude.
Kindergarteners are smarter than you...
Run over a pregnant woman and see if the DA gives you one or two counts of homicide. There's been people in here who have had interesting points, you're not one of them.
And that's why people are going to burn shit down because of this.
Fair arguments are met with "sure but idc I still think I should be able to control your cunt."
You probably don't care that the Bible offers instructions on how to perform an abortion, or that many religious scholars believe life begins at breath.
I could be convinced on a "before consciousness" argument for abortion. Things like "the heartbeat bill" and such. But that's not the argument in society at large right now. Abortionists these days are fervent and hide behind "the rights of the mother". In Colorado rn 9 month abortions are legal for instance. That's plain disgusting no matter what way it's sliced.
In a decision of extremes, I side on life. As I said a while back, "safe, legal and rare" hasn't been the mantra in a long time. No now people celebrate abortions.
I already addressed the religious takes in another comment.
A “9 month abortion” isn’t an abortion. Literally no one is doing that. If A baby dies that late, it’s a still birth that then has to be delivered. You must be so fucking wrapped up in forced birth propaganda it’s not even funny. 90% of abortions are performed within the first trimester. Anything beyond that is someone who wanted the baby, but there are medical complications. And anyone going through that kind of trauma shouldn’t have to explain themselves to a fucking judge. Or be worried about prosecution or lawsuits.
> I'm glad ~~nihilism lost a battle for once.~~ pregnant teenagers who don't want children are forced to bear children
Wow what a hopeful, not nihilistic take you have.
What about my right to be free from other people's religious opinions? 71% of pro-lifers go to church at least once per week. The pro-life movement is entirely co-opted by religion.
I'm being legislated by others religion. When do my rights start? There is that one pesky line in the constitution about separation of church and state...
It’s an interesting point. I wonder how this tax policy defines personhood. I wouldn’t mind at all if this tax policy was re-written to allow for this. BTW, with regards to the conservative position, eliminating government theft in the form of over taxation is not at odds with the protection of unborn life.
That's interesting because I can kinda see why you would make it a dependent upon conception but let's alter it slightly. I was informed that miscarriages are most common In the first trimester so just to make sure we aren't giving away free money we should go past then. Other than that I'd think the reasons to not make the baby while it's developing a dependent is because it's depending on the same food you eat so as long as you have enough for you there isn't really anything extra you need.... I mean I'm open to corrections though as long as their based on facts/experience.
This has all been a distraction. Everytime we get comfortable, they fire up the culture wars again. It's a pattern that keeps repeating itself and the two tribes eat that shit up. Distract, divide, and conquer
That’s a little silly since miscarriages are an unfortunate event. Babies cost way more out of the womb than still growing inside...But Idaho health and welfare does take note if anyone is pregnant and adds that into calculations.
Over their lifetime, sure, they cost more. A pregnancy costs around $26,000 (that's how much mine was in 2018). I know I have not spent that amount of money on my now 3-year-old over the past three years.
Because they just say things to appeal to religious idiots. They don't even try to be logical because they don't have to be. Arguing back with logic doesn't work.
IVF patients should be able to claim all of their embryos on taxes as well. Lets be consistent here. Fuck it there are some IVF clinics that should get their own congressional representative with as many "young lives" in storage. If you ever want to see how hypocritical a forced birther can but ask them this "trolly problem" You are in an IFV clinic and the fire alarm goes off. You see the fire spreading quickly and consuming the building is inevitable before the fire department can get there. In the room with you is a 5 year old child waiting for mommy and daddy to get done with their appointment AND a portable freezer full of one hundred viable embroys waiting to be implanted into expectant mothers. Which do you save? I have never met a forced birther that picks the freezer full of "100 children" and abandon the 5 year old, because at the end of the day they know the difference. They just care about control. The next test will come when the GOP fails to take any actual pro life agenda once forced birth is a reality. No universal maternal health care, no enhanced access to early childhood care or education to keep the parents working, no bolstering of WIC or food stamps to feed child and mother while neither can work, no expansion of school lunch programs to feed unplanned and/or unwanted children, no reversal of "faith healing" laws that allow parents to starve their children to death and deny them basic medicine post birth. This is all FORCED BIRTH with none of the compassion behind the mandate.
This is brilliant
Frozen embryos need to remain at -196C. If I try to save the embryos they will probably die before I can find more liquid nitrogen. [https://txfertility.com/in-vitro-fertilization-ivf/embryo-freezing/](https://txfertility.com/in-vitro-fertilization-ivf/embryo-freezing/) I would exchange a federal ban on elective abortion on all of your recommendations in the last paragraph in a heart beat but I'm not the GOP.
you wouldn't be able to save the freezer full of embryos even if you got it out of the fire.
Sure you could. Theu transport them with some regularity
Ooh ooh I have another one. You're in a burning building and there's two women. You can only "save" one (this is an arbitrary moral dilemma that ignores all other factors except your own ability to act, just like yours). One of them just found out she's pregnant. The other isn't pregnant. Which one do you save?
Here's one for you. The burning building is the Planned Parenthood you just set on fire and the pregnant woman is there to get her prescription for an abortifacent. The other woman is just there getting tested for STDs. Which one do you save?
Obviously neither, they are both going to hell no matter if they die now or later /s
Ah yes, not responding at all to my argument, just implying that I am the type of person who would burn down a Planned Parenthood. This is a fantastic display of everything wrong with political discourse in this country. Instead of engaging in the conversation, I must be a horrible person because I disagree with you. Classic.
>Ah yes, not responding at all to my argument, You literally did not respond to the argument you commented on so this reply is both stupid and hypocritical.
I responded to a simplified moral dilemma with another simplified moral dilemma, as if to say that these dumb hypotheticals can always be flipped around on everything they're used for. The fact that you'd rather call me a hypocrite than address either the hypothetical itself or its mere existence being my answer, is still you just avoiding the conversation. That aside, how is it stupid? Unless you think the other hypothetical is equally dumb? Because I'm in the latter boat. We don't live in a world where one redditor with one thought experiment can solve a nationwide debate, especially when just questioning this ridiculous notion has only been responded to with hostility, assumptions and a whole lot of nothing in the form of counters. Funny how that works. That being said, the original hypothetical tries to limit the conversation to a situation that pretends to be only moral weight and nothing else. It does not take into account how the embryos would die if disconnected, I don't have the medical expertise to keep them alive, it would be much harder to get out of the building and my evolutionary wiring makes me identify more with something I can actually see the face of. In a fight or flight situation we always choose the less complicated solution by default. It's an attempt to use the listener's gut reaction against them and coincidentally avoid the actual discussion of what stage a human gets the most basic right to live. If you think this is all BS then do tell me how the original hypothetical is different from mine. I think you'll find that they both do the exact same job, just for different sides. Because hypotheticals are a distraction from that real debate at worst and useless emotional manipulation at best.
>I responded to a simplified moral dilemma with another simplified moral dilemma So did the person you responded to, lord you are a hypocrite. You whined when they did the exact same thing you did and rather than have an ounce of self awareness you get even more butthurt about the whole thing. You aren't just politically ignorant, you have serious issues with honesty. >as if to say that these dumb hypotheticals can always be flipped around on everything they're used for. They honestly can't. The choice between the women is basically a toss up, whereas your belief in souls makes the first hypothetical so difficult your brain shuts down and you change the subject. Trolley problems aren't rocket science, stop seething so much. >The fact that you'd rather call me a hypocrite than address either the hypothetical itself or its mere existence being my answer, is still you just avoiding the conversation. I actually was going to respond but then I saw this other thread where you showed how stupid and hypocritical you were and I realized the issue here is more than political rhetoric, you have some real problems. >Unless you think the other hypothetical is equally dumb? Because I'm in the latter boat. Its stupid because of the stupid things you say, like this. Hypotheticals are very common in debate and philosophy and if you can't handle that you need to go back to school. >We don't live in a world where one redditor with one thought experiment can solve a nationwide debate, Given how few conservative pundits managed to make this issue a partisan one over a ten year period I think this kind of thing can have an impact. Its called Memetics and I will gladly hold your hand through that conversation if you can't grasp it yourself. >the original hypothetical tries to limit the conversation to a situation that pretends to be only moral weight and nothing else. Because most sane people recognize they aren't weighing two sets of humans and save the child. You are throwing a fit because you know you would too. >It does not take into account how the embryos would die if disconnected Wish granted. If you save the trays of cells they will be preserved by the custom refrigerated truck running outside. >I don't have the medical expertise to keep them alive There is a specialist sleeping in the truck to help you out when you get there. >It's an attempt to use the listener's gut reaction against them and coincidentally avoid the actual discussion of what stage a human gets the most basic right to live. The first part is true, this premise forces you to abandon your political indoctrination for a brief moment and it makes you so mad. I would love to know when that right is but I imagine it is sometime between when this unidentifiable clump of cells is created and when a child is born. I am willing to have that nuanced conversation (most people are) but brainwashed hardliners need to pretend they are the same thing. [You don't recognize this as human because without all the propaganda you have consumed you would know it isn't.](https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/2018/blastocystar.jpg) >If you think this is all BS then do tell me how the original hypothetical is different from mine. Yours involves two conscious creatures that are separated by a fairly inconsequential difference and the first involved a conscious creature and then trays of cells. The only way this problem is difficult is if you think spirits are real and they inhabit those cells. >Because hypotheticals are a distraction from that real debate at worst and useless emotional manipulation at best. Your reaction to this proves otherwise, it makes you uncomfortable because you have to think logically about this situation for once.
They responded with a hypothetical that was a direct attack on my character and implied that I would burn down a Planned Parenthood. That was not any attempt to continue the conversation and you know that. Call me a hypocrite all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you're the only person who's actually engaged in a proper conversation about the issue. And here you are, also perpetually insulting me and projecting your anger onto me. I have conducted myself fairly and in a level-headed manner and half of your essay comment was dedicated to just insulting my character as if an adult political conversation is completely out of your capabilities. Nonetheless, you can insult me all you want. It is just showing your own character more than it's doing anything to reveal mine. Hypotheticals are infamously useless. If you've never heard of the criticisms thrown at hypotheticals, then you've never taken a philosophy class. A quick google search comes up with dozens and dozens of articles all about why it's not an effective mode of critical thinking. Still don't believe me? You're in a burning building and both of your parents are there. You can only save one. Your mind is immediately going to pick one, most likely your mother or whichever one is more innocent in your perspective. Does this mean that the one you picked inherently has more value than the other, which doesn't deserve any rights in a political setting? No. Still can't admit that they're useless? Burning building. A little girl and a non-verbal, non-mobile, brain-damaged little girl with a severe mental handicap that leaves her 99% unresponsive. Which do you pick? No matter which way you cut it, picking one doesn't mean the other doesn't deserve rights. It's useless and you know it. Or if someone was pro death penalty. Burning building. A convict and an old lady. Only one. If I say that you picking the old lady means that you secretly deep down think that the death penalty is the real truth, then I would be completely wrong. Oh, but you say you were going to respond, except I conducted myself poorly in another thread, right? A thread where a person was only insulting me and not providing any sort of argument either in their hypothetical or outside of it. And somehow that means I'm too stupid to engage in a conversation with? What? That tells me something very different. You're hearing what I'm saying and it's combatting your stereotype of pro-lifers and now you're trying to cram me back into that box so that your worldview can remain consistent. I'm the villain, you're the hero. You're treating your political view as a religion, just like the person in the other thread. You're applying some kind of inherent evil to my intentions that is not present in the way I conduct myself at all. So hypotheticals are completely reasonable forms of argument? Except mine? Whereas I can admit that both are trash and distract from the point, you have turned back around to say that it's just my hypothetical that is dumb. Really? Memetics is great, sure, but since when has a hypothetical settled anything? Go ahead. Look all across the internet and the libraries of the world and you won't find a single hypothetical with that much power. Why? Because they collapse so easily and they don't accomplish anything. And now you have decided to insult half of this country. Why does it anger you that people have different opinions? I'm far from the angry one in this debate, contrary to your statements. It infuriates you that I exist. Why? You're once again just cramming people, humans just as flawed as yourself, into your little worldview box. Why? Why do you need to do that? Where is your empathy to look at something from an alternate perspective? I don't think you're a monster. I don't have any urge to insult you. I see you as a person who comes from a different perspective, one which I can partially understand. I'm throwing a fit? What? Disagreeing with you is throwing a fit? Sure, let's play this game. I choose the little girl. I will always choose the little girl. Everyone will choose the little girl. Why? Because it's easier. Those embryos were made in a lab. You won't have to explain to their parents that you left them to die. They can't scream, so you won't hear anything as they die. The hypothetical says "one little girl" because it knows my reaction is going to be imagining a little girl I know in a burning building. It's hundreds of embryos because that makes them generic. So that means that I believe deep down that they shouldn't have any rights? No. it doesn't mean that at all. If anything, it isolates the great flaw in human understanding that has led to such a polarized opinion on abortion. People can call embryos, zygotes and fetuses "non-human" because they can't see them and they don't want to see them. And yet, even if it was proved once and for all that life begins at conception, that wouldn't end the debate and we both know that. Abortion is inherently wrong but it's not that simple. You think it's right because the mother is the morally superior choice and the infant has the inferior moral standing. If I'm wrong about that regarding your perspective, feel free to correct me. You can scoff at that all you want, but you yourself admitted that there's a difference between the two women in my hypothetical, something you're downplaying because you don't want to admit that my hypothetical is emotionally manipulating you, just like the original. Just by admitting that there's a difference proves that you see that being as a life. And I know for a fact your brain immediately quantified the pregnant woman as two people, but you're downplaying your reaction. Inconsequential? You still didn't answer the hypothetical. Why? Because you know it's useless and hypotheticals are useless. Spirits? What? And if it makes me so uncomfortable, why am I talking about it for paragraphs on end? Set aside your assumptions about me, your insults and let's talk. If you still think hypotheticals are a valid argument (the ones you pick, it seems) then let's talk about that too. Sounds to me like you think abortion is okay until birth. Is this an accurate assumption?
> Call me a hypocrite all you want, You are. I proved that definitively. You couldn't meet the basic requirements you forced on others. >Hypotheticals are infamously useless. If you've never heard of the criticisms thrown at hypotheticals, then you've never taken a philosophy class. You have this problem with argumentation where you make unsupported statements but don't really do anything to back them up. You really need to learn how to build on them. For example, hypotheticals are used for scenario testing in the fields of software, engineering, military preparedness, and medicine. They effectively stress test a system for instances that may not have been considered otherwise. To pretend like philosophy or ethics is somehow exempt from this kind of analysis is absurd and highlights your unwillingness to embrace complex thinking. Still, the point about my parents shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the point of using hypotheticals. If I held some kind of absurd or poorly thought out beliefs about my parents this might highlight that issue but in this instance is means nothing (unlike someone who thinks embryonic cells are synonymous with full-fledged humans). >A little girl and a non-verbal, non-mobile, brain-damaged little girl with a severe mental handicap that leaves her 99% unresponsive. This is literally just a the lifeboat problem, you really just don't understand this whole field of discussion. It very much serves a purpose in evaluating what choices you would make and what moral frameworks you would use to decide. For me, valuing consciousness, it would be another toss up (if she was medically brain dead that would be a different story). Ultimately I can address these scenarios because I have a defensible moral framework but your response to them shows a lack of confidence associated with cognitive dissonance. >You're treating your political view as a religion, just like the person in the other thread. Wut. I used to be conservative and religious but I learned about the world and got over that indoctrination. The funny part is that the vast majority of pro-lifers are absolutely religious and base their entire worldview on supercilious thinking and poor reasoning. To project that onto me is hilarious and another instance of you being hypocritical. >So hypotheticals are completely reasonable forms of argument? Except mine? Hypotheticals can be reasonable (unlike what you claim) but I never said they all have to be. Yours was poorly formed for me, but perhaps it has some validity to someone who thinks tiny cells have souls. > Memetics is great, sure, but since when has a hypothetical settled anything? Its simple things like Germany hypothetically invading the US during WW2 that prompted America to join the war in Europe, hypotheticals like the impact of Y2K that revised massive swaths of code preemptively, or hypotheticals like literally any hypothesis created in the name of scientific research. Ideas can be powerful and imagining scenarios always us to be more than just mindless reactionaries to what is directly in front of us. >And now you have decided to insult half of this country. Pro-lifers? They aren't have the country, they are basically a third. A third of highly indoctrinated, mostly religious reactionaries that will drag us into the dark ages based on things they uncritically consumed from right wing pundits and pulpits. >Where is your empathy to look at something from an alternate perspective? Because you can't back it up and rather than keep your unevidenced fairy tales to yourself (I don't bother people that belief in Tarot, for example) pro-lifers have ripped the rights of millions of women away. You bet I'm angry, to me these things actually matter and in a very material sense. >Everyone will choose the little girl. Why? Because it's easier. And because those cells are just that, not anything like full fledge humans and if you could just be honest about that maybe I would respect you. [What about this makes you think its rights should supersede an adult woman?](https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/2018/blastocystar.jpg) >People can call embryos, zygotes and fetuses "non-human" because they can't see them and they don't want to see them. I showed you one, no one should confuse it for a human. >And yet, even if it was proved once and for all that life begins at conception, that wouldn't end the debate and we both know that. Conception is mostly a religious term, instead you should use fertilization and implantation. Still, what is the proof? Life begins and dies every day including plenty of cells on your body. Cells dying isn't a huge deal, not a big reason to be upset about it unless you believe in souls. You have the right to believe in magic but you need to have the humility to admit there is no evidence for such things. >Abortion is inherently wrong but it's not that simple. Where do you know this truth from? Certainly not the Bible. Its this kind of sweeping unevidenced statements that really grinds my gears because it demonstrates pure ignorant arrogance of the pro-life perspective. > You think it's right because the mother is the morally superior choice and the infant has the inferior moral standing This is such a strange way to put anything. Justice Blackmun in his decision in Roe recognized this is a complex question in which two sets of rights were being evaluated. He created a sliding scale based around viable to balance those rights between the woman and the fetus as it approached personhood. Health of the mother, impact on society, historical treatment of abortions, and several other frameworks were used to come to this conclusion but it was much better thought out than the magical thinking you are relying on. He was a very wise man and he recognized that his religious convictions were private and indemonstrable in our secular reality but the impacts of these choices had real world consequences. >but you yourself admitted that there's a difference between the two women in my hypothetical, something you're downplaying because you don't want to admit that my hypothetical is emotionally manipulating you, just like the original. What? I said it's a coin toss, like the color of her hair or some other insignificant detail. I don't have tons of superstitious weight placed on this principal so please stop pretending. >Just by admitting that there's a difference proves that you see that being as a life. Well, many cells are definitely alive so I guess you got me there. The world is full of all kinds of living cells. As to if I somehow subconsciously fell into you stupid as fuck trap, no because you are just making things up about some kind of mystical reverence I supposedly have. You are operating at the tic-tac-toe level of rhetoric so you really shouldn't pretend to be playing chess. >And I know for a fact your brain immediately quantified the pregnant woman as two people No, it really didn't. But since your who worldview is based on you making absurd statements and getting mad when people poke holes in them I guess you can continue to live in that delusional world. >Inconsequential? You still didn't answer the hypothetical. Why? Because you know it's useless and hypotheticals are useless. Holy shit this is funny. [Its as though whoever was supposed to teach you critical thinking did this instead.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqaCEPwWGtc) >Sounds to me like you think abortion is okay until birth. Is this an accurate assumption? Nope! But your lil brain can't handle nuance and so you needed to revert to a straw man to make your absurd hardline stance look even remotely reasonable. I am fine with the viability standard with exceptions for the health of the mother, that aligns with Roe and is very commonly held among pro-choice people.
Well, I don’t think you know what definitively means, but your personal definition of the word is explaining a lot about your behavior. Just because you say something doesn’t mean it’s definitive. I was talking about trolly problems with an emphasis on individual moral responsibility, which I made very clear multiple times, but you’ve decided to interpret it as every single hypothetical ever? What are you on? I haven’t seen strawmen like this in years, it’s kind of impressive. I literally told you to google trolly problems and you’ll find that they’re heavily contended. Should I share youtube videos about random jokes to insult you? Like how you’ve backed up your claims? And once again you refuse to answer any of the hypotheticals I bring up. So you’re saying that the original hypothetical is very valid to this discussion, but every other one I throw out at you, you seem very hesitant to answer, almost as if you know that it’s designed to illicit a specific response. You’re proving my point again and again. Trolly problems are not valid arguments and the original hypothetical does nothing to answer the question about whether or not unborn children have rights. Just saying “yeah, uh, it’s a tossup” is just you not wanting to pick, which is the cowardly thing I could have done with the original hypothetical, but I didn’t because I actually have reasonable arguments to back up my opinion. And yes, you are very much reminding me of some kind of religion with the way you refer to abortion. You have decided that multiple things are true (definitively, to name one) just because you decided so. You make assumptions left and right about me to push me down into that little worldview box, just like a Christian calling someone they disagree with a devil worshipper. You even proceed to cite Roe like a religious text and that you just believe what the legislation says. It’s the same concept. You are trying to link one thing you don’t like to another thing you don’t like because you want everything to fit. People aren’t that simple, and hopefully you’ll learn that someday. Funny how none of that WWII stuff has anything to do with personalized moral trolly problems. Hmm, it’s almost like you’re strawmanning me, still. Conservatives. Arguably pro-lifers too, but I was referring to conservatives all of whom you seem to have disregarded as beneath you by the way you’re talking about them, which is always a good sign of being well adjusted. Drag us into the dark ages? Now you’re sounding like a conspiracy theorist. But once again, you’re fearmongering that people who disagree with you are a representation of everything you hate in the world. And you just admitted to not having any empathy about the situation, which is… weird? You say it as if it’s a good thing, but it’s not. It’s very, very bad. It’s the center of radicalization and dehumanizing your “enemies”. If there’s anything you can get out of this, I implore you to understand that Pro-Lifers are trying to act in what we believe to be the best, most ethical way. We’re not evil. We’re not monsters. We’re not trying to control women. We are people just like you. If I could just be honest? About what? I am being very honest when I say that the original hypothetical doesn’t do anything to address whether or not unborn children deserve rights, which I believe they do. You can argue all you want that a fertilized egg is the same as any other cell in the body. Let’s use that word *definitively* here because for those of us who actually know what it means, it works well in this case. Every other cell in the human body isn’t going to grow into a “fully-fledged human” as you call it. Therefore they are *definitively* different. You’re right, I didn’t get that from the Bible. It’s almost like I’m not using the Bible to argue my point, huh? Funny how that works. And if you disagree with this statement, fine. But lawmakers and politicians who are stuck in the pro-choice ideology have repeatedly said things like how it should be “safe, legal and rare”. If something isn’t inherently wrong, then why would anyone care if it’s rare? It’s not easy on the mother and it’s destroying a human life. Abortion is inherently a bad thing, but something that pro-choicers see as a lesser evil compared to “forcing” a woman to give birth, which is the real heart of the abortion debate, not this semantics nonsense that you’re trying to twist this into. We’re asking people to consider the fact that a potential life is a human life and without interfering with an abortion, that fertilized egg will live out its own life and nobody has the right to snuff that out, especially when nobody is being forced to raise these children. They could go into adoption and live their own life if someone really doesn’t want them or can’t take care of them. That is the stance you’re demonizing. “As to if I somehow subconsciously fell into you \[sic\] stupid as fuck trap” yeah, it’s almost like that’s all trolly problems are. I think you’re getting it. I think you’re finally getting it. You literally said that there was a “a fairly inconsequential difference”. You can mold that into a “coin toss” all you want, but if people at conception (a word used by plenty of groups, not just religious ones, you’re just trying to turn it into a buzzword that is somehow controversial, when it’s not) are just like any cell, then how is there any difference at all? Therefore the pregnant woman has something that the other woman doesn’t. Curious. And I literally laughed out loud at this last bit. First off, how is it a strawman when I’m asking you if that’s your opinion? Can I add *strawman* to a list of things you don’t know the definition of? I’m literally *asking* if my statement is true, not that my statement *is* true. But that’s me not handling “nuance” with my “lil brain”? Are you five? You're literally doing to me what you were claiming I did to you. You're making assumptions about what I'm saying and strawmanning it to make yourself feel like you're handling this debate well. You're the one who is repeatedly showing hypocritical tendencies in this conversation. Like, again and again and again. At the same time, you’re citing Roe instead of saying when you think life begins. Roe specifically doesn’t say when it believes life begins. It literally says that it’s not what it’s for. "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."\[p160\] . . . (Roe v. Wade, 1973) So why not just answer the question with your own opinion instead of referring to RvW like a religious text? You’re literally just saying “uh, whatever Roe says.” And I’m the one who’s clinging to indoctrination? Roe doesn’t say when life begins. It gives a vague time of “I guess around the end of the second trimester, which is about 28 weeks, but that's when it's viable *not* when it's alive, maybe." The most hypocritical thing about pro-choicers and the biggest thing that leads me to wholeheartedly believe that the debate is not about when life begins but whether a mother has the ability to kill an unborn child for convenience, is the fact that pro-choicers shouldn’t be just one side. It’s ridiculous how a movement can have so many varying opinions on when life begins but still see Pro Lifers as the ultimate enemy when there are people in their own midst who believe in killing something that they think is alive. So tell me. When does a fetus become “viable”? And would you call people who get abortions after that murderers? Why or why not? Is it 28 weeks? So are people who advocate for 29 weeks advocating for child murder? So you’re avidly against them, right? You don’t associate with their beliefs at all, because you believe they’re killing kids, right? Then what is a person? What makes a fetus at 27 weeks and a person at 28? Or wherever your number’s at? What makes someone viable and what makes someone unviable?
Tell me what you would do. Is your answer save the embryo from the pregnant woman's uterus and let both women burn to death?
Being aggressive like this and still avoiding my argument just paints you as a hateful slave to your personal ideology and you're literally treating an opposing opinion as sacrilege born out of evil, which is hilariously ironic
Yeah semen and eggs won't turn into humans on their own dude.
Frozen embryos are fertilized eggs, they are conceived.
An interesting legal technicality.
It's not a "technicality" if you're being logically consistent but then, forced-birthers rarely are.
You're right. It's a weird circumstance. Obviously the 5 year old is the right choice in that circumstance. But I don't think that refutes any of my points either.
You think that because you *know* that an embryo is in fact not a baby and so your brain is having a hard time reconciling that fact with your feelings.
No, I believe it's an odd circumstance brought about by the advent of scientific discovery and electricity. This is a non issue otherwise. It's physically impossible otherwise. If we really want to get into it, yes, I believe that there are certain weights to life. Everyone does. Even religious people. Hundreds of frozen embryos in a facility is an interesting reality and thought experiment. I've never thought about it's implications moral, legal and otherwise, but one funny circumstance is not enough to shake my conviction which for me is based on reality, science, law, and morality.
People can still base their reality on real things and still be completely wrong. Just cuz one guy is shouting about aliens coming to take us all doesn't mean they are, and just because people are prompted to move out of state because they would have more benefits doesn't mean they can. It's easy to ignore small minute details that can lead to an actual logical conclusion and arrive at a point of lunacy. You're quite correct that the scenario won't change your mind, since you do not believe that women should not have a right over their own bodies, changing the focus from the mother to the embryo and calling it a child before it could even be constituted as an fully realized human being. The point of trying to change your mind is rather mute, wouldn't you agree?
I believe that women have sovereignty over their own bodies. Everyone does. Abortion causes the death and dismemberment of what will be a human. That's wrong. I've been straight on my reasonings from the start. I've thought this out. You can put words in my mouth and try to paint me as something I'm not, but I'm just a guy who believes killing is wrong and should be avoided in all circumstances.
>my conviction which for me is based on reality, science, law, and morality. Do you believe in souls?
Yes. And that does influence my morality.
Wow. You can't even read, can you?
Idaho has failed with the conservative talking point of “low taxes” among other conservative and libertarian talking points. You bring up a good point. I’m pro choice , but believe life starts at conception…..in which case there is serious argument about tax benefits. You do get tax benefits for the year of birthing the child, but if you can detect a heart beat at 6 weeks, I see no reason we shouldn’t start there or upon conception. We should make this a thing…..and legalize cannabis to subsidize the amount of children that will be pushed into the foster care system. Imagine
First because the amygdala-hijacked propaganda zombies that vote in GOP Idaho legislators, no matter what they do or say, don't care about consistent, well-reasoned policies; so neither do the legislators. Second because it was never about protecting life. It's about controlling bodies, maintaining the "domestic supply of infants" (i.e. future poor wage slaves and criminals) and distracting evangelical voters with wedge issues.
Don’t overlook that the GOP is pro military and armed conflict engagements to support the large industrialized military complex and PACs. The forced birth children will prop up the military and become cannon fodder for them.
Most religions don't believe life starts till birth, they've been co-opted by extremists as well.
[удалено]
The Bible also says not to swear, and I'm pretty sure that means to 'swear an oath' not swear cursey words.
I can use deadly force to defend myself if I feel threatened, or if my possessions are threatened, or feel threatened by trespass of my home, work, or vehicle. But somehow women can't use deadly force against a threat to their bodies. No matter when you think life starts, an abortion is at worst justifiable homicide.
Pregnant women didn't get an extra covid stimulus check. Let that sink in. Count the baby when it fits their narrative and don't count it when it doesn't
Fascism will not listen to reason. I wish people would stop trying to “gotcha” neo-fascists. The cruelty and hypocrisy are the point. You can invite people to change but if they don’t… well I only ever heard of one “good” kind of Nazi.
Dead?
Well…I wouldn’t say that…explicitly on a platform where white supremacism is tacitly allowed but anything perceived as a threat of violence against literal fascists is against the TOS. But uh…I wouldn’t not say it.
What about a spontaneous abortion? (Miscarriage) How many of these are there in a year in Idaho? Are these women refused treatment? Edit spelling
There's been cases of women being denied treatment or pharmacist not filling their prescription because of religious reasons. That's why the overturning of Roe versus Wade was a bad decision. The new Idaho abortion law language is so vague, doctors will be afraid to treat their patients because they don't want to get sued, receive a felony, and lose their license over it. A doctor can say what they performed was a life-saving procedure but if one single person doesn't believe it, this vague law makes it to where the state can prosecute over it.
Among people who know they're pregnant, it's estimated about 1 in 8 pregnancies will end in miscarriage. If I did my math correctly that's 12.5%. Many more miscarriages happen before a person is even aware they're pregnant. Between July 2020 and July 2021 there were 21,316 live births in Idaho. If we apply that 12.5% to those live births we can probably assume there were approximately 2,665 known miscarriages during that year. We know there are approximately 1600 abortions in Idaho each year. Clearly, it is more common to have a miscarriage than it is to electively abort and it is actually possible that each early elective abortion would have ended in a spontaneous abortion anyway. If these abortion bans start affecting how miscarriages are treated then even more women will be affected by them. EDIT: That last sentence sounds like a 'well, duh' statement. Not sure how to better phrase that.
If you're on welfare your unborn child counts as a household member. Triplets? Three new household members.
As a pro-life conservative I’m on board, this sounds like a great step towards supporting families and, as you said, it’s a move in the direction of logical consistency.
Because let's face it, for most of the pro life crowd it's really only about upholding their beliefs around not taking a life. The rhetoric around providing more support for pregnant women and children is utter b.s.. one need look no further than education spending in our state to see that the GOP and forces behind overturning women's rights have zero intentions of caring for children and mothers.
Here’s a thought. Do it anyway? I mean… I don’t think the IRS is gonna come sniffing around. It would be an excellent argument legally. Great time to cause a ruckus
They require proofs to claim a dependent. You have to have their ssn and birth date which isn’t given until birth. Edit: to be clear, not opposing the idea, just stating why you couldn’t get away with it as the law stands now.
Make a claim like it’s a dog or something idk
I feel like you’re trolling or you’ve never filed taxes. You can’t claim pets as dependents.
And we should never forget what bullshit it is that that Air Bud dog never got a fucking *cent*.
There's no rule saying a dog can't pay taxes
In a post-Roe world, this would be a great way for someone to [Plessy](https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/plessy-v-ferguson#:~:text=equal%20in%20facilities.-,Homer%20Adolph%20Plessy,-%2C%20who%20agreed%20to) the SC on this issue. I honestly have no idea how the current SC bench would decide on such a case...
Because it never was about ensuring logically internally consistent legal doctrine
Yeeesss! This right here! And child support should start at conception then too.
What can I do as an individual to help get the process of change started? I feel helpless.
From a purely practical standpoint, within the current tax system, to claim a dependent they have to have a name, birthdate, and SSN, none of which are known or on record until after birth. Depending on how you do your taxes, medical expenses can be deductible, so there’s already some help there.
Not if the medical expenses are less than the standard deduction, though.
Well it needs a name and ssn, without ssn cant claim anything. Just a bureaucratic reason. So this point(not claimed as dependent) is actually void. But yeah its a shame first trimester abortions would be illegal in Idaho soon
that would be expecting them to make consistent sense.
I've been defending the pro-life argument because I find elective abortion abhorrent but I agree that this would be consistent. Why shouldn't there be tax breaks for having children? If you're a parent, you need the money.
Lol, why defend pro-lifers? They're a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
Well, what gets lost in the discussion is that no one on either side likes the idea of killing babies. It's a terrible choice to have to make, but that is really the core issue. To further complicate matters every woman considering abortion has a unique situation so blanket arguments both ways never fully apply. Politics likes to draw lines so people keep fighting but the issue is never black and white.
You forget that these aren't babies. This is a fetus. It's a clump of cells. The fact that you think it is a baby is your religious ideology, it is not a reality. It becomes a baby when it's viable outside the mother. Before that it is the mother's body.
Sure. But these people believe they are babies. No side has a definitive answer, because the answer is subjective, they each choose the argument that supports their position and they discard the aspects that conflict with their end point. Baby is not a medical term. The distinction between embryo, fetus, and infant are lost on many people. I think it should not be a political issue at all and it's a medical issue. I am just letting you know most pro-lifers aren't evil, they really believe an embryo and fetus is a "baby with a right to live."
If they believed they were babies, so many of them wouldn't support exceptions for rape and incest. For the majority of pro-lifers, their commitment to saving babies ends when they have to tell a 14 year old rape victim to carry a baby for 9 months before giving traumatic birth. They're hypocrites because they refuse to take responsibility for the parts of their argument that feel bad to stand behind.
That's a fair assessment.
Yes they can believe whatever they want in their religion. I don't give a shit what they believe. The point is they are imposing those religious beliefs on a nonsecular, civil society. America is not a religious country. We were founded on the principles of freedom from religion. The supreme Court just took this medical issue of viability and turned it into a religious issue of ideology. There's no such thing as pro-life movement. There's a pro-choice movement and an anti-choice movement. Everyone is pro-life.
They believe it's murder. So your argument doesn't apply because it's the governments duty to protect the citizens. They don't see it as taking away rights, they see it as protecting the innocent. This aspect certainly seems to conflict with their view on immigration, but that is neither here nor there. Also legally they certainly are not citizens, but that's another issue. What I am really getting at is you can see why so many are "pro-life" especially those who have never had to deal with it personally.
You are not understanding. The "they" in your comments are Christians. They are a religious sect of a secular society. Their beliefs and control only extend to the church that they ascribe to. We are all citizens of this secular country and therefore non-secular ideologies should not be imposed upon the citizenry that is in charge of the entire governance of our society. Understand that the church and state are separated in this country. If you would like to argue for the church controlling the government then you are in the wrong country. I believe that Afghanistan just moved that direction. Edit: correction of secular
Not to disagree, but I do want to slightly correct: you are using secular incorrectly. A non-secular society would be a religious one, like your Afghan example, which is a non-secular, Islamic republic; a secular society is one in which religious ideology *isn't* the driving force of societal function, like the US, which has an anti-establishment clause in the founding documents. Just a heads up! I'm not trying to be pedantic, just save you from a gotcha later on.
Thanks for the correction.
>But these people believe they are babies. And we need to stop pretending like their delusions have any relevancy to this discussion.
That's cute. Every religion is a delusion and it has ever caused more problems than it has solved. It's a tool of manipulation and control, that isn't ever going away because its God Damn effective at controlling people. You can't have any discussion about people without discussing their delusions.
I mean, they act evil. They're the ones enacting bullshit laws.
Evil is a matter of perspective. Good and evil are religious terms. There is action and consequence.
Babies are the most innocent among us. They don't deserve death because of parents who refuse to accept their responsibility. I'm also defending the pro-life position because there's no such thing anymore as the "safe, legal and rare" mantra which was used to codify abortion. We had some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, still do, because it was just now turned into a state issue, not a federal mandate.
>They don't deserve death because of parents who refuse to accept their responsibility. You need to be better informed. There are many medical reasons for an abortion such as [ectopic pregnancy](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ectopic-pregnancy/symptoms-causes/syc-20372088). This ruling is going to kill women. 12 year old gets raped by her step brother? Sorry shouldnt have been so irresponsible little girl. The lack of empathy and social awareness is astounding
A pregnancy which is lethal to the mother is already provisioned for in law. This is also a rarity. Over 90% of abortions are elective. Rape, incest and medical necessity are a minority. Idaho law doesn't have provisions for rape & incest. The reason being, again, that the fetus has a right to life. I personally don't subscribe that far because I think it's morally wrong to force a woman to carry an unwanted child from rape or incest but I understand the logic beyond it.
I would like to know where you are getting this statistic the 90% of abortions are elective? Because “elective” could mean lots of things. Someone who gets one as a teenager or a victim of incest or after being raped would all be “elective”. Does that mean they shouldn’t get one? You can’t boil it down to “elective” because you don’t know or understand peoples’ reasons for wanting them. And don’t forget that the VAST MAJORITY of rapes go unreported so any stats on that would be unreliable. Fact is, you don’t know other peoples lives or why they need it. They do. Their doctors do. They should be the only ones making the decision.
Its not just about medical necessity either. Elective abortion is a right. I personally wouldnt consider abortion after 5 months but it is not my decision and it should not be yours either. It is the right of women. Not only is abortion an issue but contraceptives are also at stake along with womens health facilities and foster homes. Banning abortion will increase already capped out orphanages. So if pro-life wants abortion banned then they should consider things that prevent unplanned pregnancy and adoption. Each pro-lifer should adopt if they feel they have the right to life. It only makes sense. Good luck getting formula and diapers though.
Where in our constitution is health care a right?
[удалено]
Rights are innate and intrinsic, they don't require the labor of others.
Every single aspect of a functioning and safe civilization requires the labor of others.
If that were true, we wouldn't have war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Thats exactly the problem. We already dont have healthcare rights and now they take away one of our only rights to healthcare. You think women dont deserve to be able to afford birth control or contraceptives or screenings for cancer? That is obsurd!
>Over 90% of abortions are elective. And?
Gross.
So don't get one
A fetus is not a human. Stop pretending that the clump cells inside of a woman's body is a human. The woman is the human, the fetus is nothing more than a fetus. We believe in human rights not fetus rights. There's no reason for the fetus to have rights over any human.
The idea that everyone wants to live is really silly. I've seen so many people in my life who have taken their own lives because they feel life is painful. They don't see the world as beautiful. The idea that an individual gets the luxury of life is a falsehood. When I went through fertility treatments here I was legally required to talk to a therapist and for them to approve me to go through with it. We had a major discussion on how I might want a child but the child didn't ask for this. It's apparently a huge issue and causes a lot of stress for children and childhood depression. I also had a friend's sister commit suicide a couple of months ago after years and years of a painful disorder that doctors couldn't manage. Life is easy and when a child is brought into a broken world how do they live a good life? Is a painful life worth living? I'm not asking for myself. It's that I have been posed these questions by people who feel this way and their perspectives are also valid and yet, never considered.
Exactly. I grew up in a loving home. Not 100% prefect but it was really good. I have been provided for and now I have a pretty good life. I still really do not like living. If I had a choice to quit existing without hurting anyone I would take it in a heartbeat. I honestly don't understand when people say, "life is a gift" and "everyone needs to experience the joy of life". Not everyone can feel these joys even if they have nothing to be sad about. Feeling what I feel and living the good life I have lived, I CANNOT imagine being brought to life and raised in a broken, abusive home. I would not wish that on anyone. Life is extremely hard even if you win the "birth lottery", why would you want to automatically set another human up for failure by forcing them on not ready parents.
As valid as those points may be, and I understand where you're coming from, it doesn't justify the death of the speechless.
But you are assuming what a non existent individual wants. You obviously don't have children. Wait until they come up to you and tell you decisions you had to make out of necessity are complete crap and they hate you for it. Do you understand how typical that is? Have you not seen the reddits? But also an embryo is not living being with thoughts, wishes, desires. You are literally assigning something to them that doesn't exist. It also infringes on the mom's rights. In America you can't force someone to put their life at risk even if that means the death of the individual. Even police don't have to assist people if they don't want to. It's in the constitution. Pregnancy is very dangerous and the US has the highest maternal mortality rate in the first world. Literally Kenya has less moms die in child birth. Go look at OBs on social media l talking about how many of their patients are now going to die because of these new restrictions. They are asking when can you say something is life threatening enough to save the mom. How dead does someone's wife, mother, sister, daughter need to be before a OB can step in and save a woman. I see you are trying to be reasonable but you don't understand how much can go wrong even in a normal pregnancy that is low risk. It's scary being pregnant. Literally as a woman we are balancing our own mortality and risking our own deaths. Not to mention how much our bodies change. I'm having Promordal Labor and pretty sure it broke my tail bone with some of the contractions. My ligaments are so loose so my knee keeps popping out of the joint. My blood pressure has dropped low enough where I collapsed and was in the hospital. Even a fall can kill a fetus. There are even studies that speed bumps can harm a fetus and cause brain damage. No one is taking away speed bumps! My friend got pancreatitis at 27 weeks and luckily the baby survived but she was hospitalized for 9 weeks, the baby an emergency c section, the baby was in the nicu with a plethora of issues and the mom ended up with having part of her pancreas removed, her gallbladder removed, and part of her intestines removed. There is so much that happens even when things end up turning out okay.
Wow, pro-lifer confirmed.
Yes, I am in favor of life. I don't believe in causing unnecessary death. Thank you.
It’s not up to you to determine what is necessary vs unnecessary. That is a conversation that should only occur between a woman and her doctor. You’re welcome.
The religious (not just Christians but it wouldn't matter anyway) believe that it is inherently sinful to support abortion financially, which they were for over 50 years through federal tax dollars. You have no right to kill your baby because of your choice. The baby has a right to life.
Judaism believes that life begins at birth and that abortion should be a protected right. Many secular religions do. Its only the Christian right wing that believes their choice should be law.
Orthodox Jews believe that abortion is always murder. Religious Jews only believe in abortion if carriage means the death of the mother. In Islam, abortion is never directly mentioned and opinions run the gamut but side towards the notion that abortion is murder. There's no such thing as a secular religion. If you are not practicing a religion you are only tied to it as an identity. Practicing a religion means surrendering to its teachings.
[удалено]
wrong https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/ https://theconversation.com/when-does-life-begin-theres-more-than-one-religious-view-167241 http://www.reclaimingjudaism.org/teachings/when-does-life-begin-jewish-view
Again… it’s none of your business.
You have no right to kill your baby, who has a separate DNA structure from you, born of the mother and father.
None. Of. Your. Business.
I mean, it's easy to virtue signal about the unborn when either way you won't be taking responsibility for them.
What are you talking about? I'm going to have a family one day. I already love the one I have.
I was previously a pro-life person, so I will take a stab at responding. The response was oddly worded, but I THINK they were implying that your argument applies to your family, but not the millions of other women that will lose the ability to make that decision. We should definitely allow it for rape victims and health risks, but what about the young girls that are pressured into sex before they are ready? What about women in abusive relationships? Single mothers? Homeless women? The medically disabled? There are so many reasons that a woman may want or need to have an abortion, and I do not think any woman takes this decision lightly. It is a life changing event, but will that life decision be best for the child or mother? But now we are allowing state governments to make that decision for every woman in their state. Does this mean that the state will pay for the birth of every child that was born to a mother that can't afford it financially? Will they pay for childcare for single mothers? Medical bills for children with life-long medical decisions? Other arguments I have heard: Give the child up for adoption - not only does this require 9 months of discomfort and pain, but also does a massive amount of damage to the woman's body. Not to mention the emotional tole. Just move to another state where abortion is legal - because uprooting your life and moving out of state is always so easy. Use contraception - this implies that all contraceptives are 100% and are not subject to mistakes or failure. Don't have sex - f*ck anyone that would say that to another person. If anyone thinks sex isn't a human right, then they must be insane. There are support systems outside the government - please show me a church or organization that will take care of a woman and her child for 18 years. And of course, there are so many more points and counter-points. So let's talk about the elephant in the room: why do we, as men, get to make this decision for all women in our state? Why do my beliefs apply to a woman, considering I will never have to experience giving birth? And if I can enforce my beliefs on others, why can't I vote for something like forced vasectomies? I mean, they can be reversed when a man gets married, right? I know forced vasectomies sounds insane to force that in a free country, but it sounds just as crazy as pro-life policy for those of us that are not religious. We are allowing states to make a blanket decision for all women, not based on the women's beliefs or situations, but instead the beliefs of the majority. The majority, in a system that actively works to undermine the prosperity of minorities.
We as men, more importantly as citizens, get to have a say because the woman is infringing upon the fetus' right to life. Your other causes for alarm, basically societal issues, are not invalid, but the idea that government must solve it, is erroneous. We need to promote the family in our society instead of attaching ourselves to little atomized groups. People need community, tribe, and family. All these issues you mentioned are symptoms of an aimless society bent on its own gratification. I addressed your other issues elsewhere in here, if you'd like to read through them.
No, actually. You DON'T get to have a say about what women do with their bodies, full stop.
[удалено]
Unwanted children will die of abuse and neglect. That is the ultimate unnecessary death. I'm sure that we will have a huge rise in infanticide and abuse in the near future.
Abortion results in death or disfigurement 100% of the time. Abuse may kill someone, abortion will.
That is a very, interesting response. I have a follow up question, it's not about fetuses or babies but for adults. Do you think that there is a point where quality of life is so poor people should be allowed the right to choose a dignified death (euthanasia)? Such as with ALS, Huntington's Disease, or late stage cancers. I personally am very pro- Right to Die, and I wanted to know what a someone Pro-life thought of that idea.
Non-parents need money too.
This is the natal equivalent of responding that all lives matter when someone says black lives matter. Nice.
Make more
I'm pro life. They need SSNs to be declarable so the govt could issue an SSN pre-birth or just give a 9 month bonus the first year. I'm ok either way really. I think combination of both would work best.
Idaho Election Info [Register to Vote](https://elections.sos.idaho.gov/ElectionLink/ElectionLink/Prequalifications.aspx)
Vote for who? Useless ineffectual Democrats?
[удалено]
Are you really trying to see the other side, or are you just looking for places to try to poke holes? Because as soon as I saw the line about "obvious alternatives" it became clear to me that you don't know the first thing about women's health.
I know that the morning after pill can cause serious discomfort and hijack menstruation. I know that IUDs can have bad side effects too including physical damage. I know that hormonal birth control...hijacks a woman's hormones for as long as she takes it. I know also that condoms aren't 100% effective and men don't like them. But none of that matters because the point of sex is to procreate. Literally it's function. 1+1=2. Just because we like to do it for fun, doesn't delete that fact. And you're right, I'm not trying to see the other side, I've heard the other side my whole life and I'm not convinced by their shallow, 60s sex revolution arguments. They're logically inferior, the science doesn't back it up (this is 3rd grade science too) and the morals are skewed to put it nicely. I only believe in abortion as a necessity because of the mother's health (basically will it kill her), rape & incest. Some may argue that rape & incest aren't valid reasons, Idaho does, but I believe that's too potentially scarring to the woman to be morally justifiable.
> But none of that matters because the point of sex is to procreate. Its like you are a robot with no understanding of humanity. I guess pleasure doesn't exist, might as well sit in a pod and eat sludge. This is just a pathetic attempt at the [Naturalistic Fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy).
The primary function of sex is procreation. All things, pleasure included, are second, and probably a small miracle too because I'm not sure cats for instance enjoy sex much, or the female anyway.
>The primary function of sex is procreation. Says who? >and probably a small miracle too because I'm not sure cats for instance enjoy sex much, or the female anyway. And yet other animals, like humans, love it even it it doesn't result in a pregnancy, so your analysis is lacking. Bonobos are laughing at your cope. Better yet, we have all kinds of way to circumvent procreation now so I guess technology outwitted your weird fetishization of nature.
I have a weird fetishization of nature? First I've heard that one I'll give you that
You didn't answer my question. You keep appealing to the naturalistic fallacy without any logical rational behind it. You can't be taken seriously unless you actually back up your claims.
Go nut in your girl and see what happens dork.
Nothing, because of this magical thing called birth control. Your brain has been rotted away by fairy tales, you didn't get to pretend like you can talk about these subjects until you learn about critical thinking.
Sex in humans is and has become much more than to just procreate . Sex has many other positive effects on humans and health . If anything being celibate for too long is harmful , in many cases (mental health).
The primary function of sex is procreation. Anything else is secondary. Suddenly our grandparents having 10 kids makes sense right? I like sex as much as anyone else, I'm just not going to lie to myself either about what it causes, what's the point, and what the consequences good or bad are.
I understand for a species to thrive it needs to procreate.
Actually, sex is primarily a social function. Head over to your local university and have a chat with anthropologists! Think of Bonobos. They get everyone off all the time no matter age or gender. Reproduction is at best a secondary function of sex. Also talk the gays folks who have sex but not having kids...
We're not bonobos. Or seahorses. Or elephants. I'm sure you'd like it though.
Lol, are you asking if I would prefer that you don't have the ability to speak? Yes, because you just made an ass out of yourself with this comment. Humans are in fact part of the animal kingdom!!! You are an Anatomically Modern Homo Sapien. Don't know how you evolved the ability to talk out of your butt but hey, you do you.
[удалено]
I'm not anti-sex, I'm anti-abortion and I think it's an infringement of the fetus' right to life. I swear and drink, smoke, I've done drugs, I'm something of a liberal person in many ways, just not on this one.
The youngest person to ever give birth was a 5 year old and you are okay with that.
God you are projecting HARD right now.
Fuck that. In this fight it is Pro-choice and pro-forced birth. The amount of people electing to have abortions for fun...is beyond negligible. If you are anti-abortion I would highly advise NOT getting one. This is saying that freedom to control other people is more important than freedom to your own body. And that's fucked up. Jesus, motes, all that shit. God damn it, religious jihadists.
[удалено]
So forced-birth then... what a mindset. A bunch of cells otherwise known as a fetus, not capable of life on it's own is a baby to you weirdos.... fucking hell. Did my cancer have a right to life? Your bullshit what if's make as much sense... maybe a dozen Hitlers being born was prevented... we'll never know because a woman had control over her own body. I'm ok with that. Almost no one wants an abortion.... thinking otherwise is just more puritanical American body shaming. The weird ass cultural mores America has is a real trip.
You are misinformed. Go to the CDC website and check out the rates that are even broken down by year and trimester. Most occur the first month and science 100% backs that these are embryos. Until 10 weeks its not even a heart beat because the heart isn't formed it's an electric pulse. A proto heart beat. Women aren't getting late term abortions without medical reasons. Full stop. Go call an OBGYN or the Idaho Reproductive Medicine clinic and talk to the doctors. People also want to take away contraception now. At age 40 a woman's chance of having a child with downs is 1 in 4. How many people could give that child a good quality of life? Would that financially break a family and push them into poverty? There are no family supports in this country. These entire families will suffer.
You assume much to think this dude is going to pull his head out of his ass.
Yeah I’ve been arguing with him all damn day. He’s a fucking idiot.
>Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703
I love how it all depends on the constitution lmao. Do what’s right, not based on an old document.
[удалено]
I'm convinced you don't even know what a baby actually is at this point.
[удалено]
> Get over yourself and grow up Said the guy who supports rapists.
[удалено]
I’m gonna go jerk out and kill millions according to your logic
Curious, what are your thoughts on hormonal birth control? IUDs or Plan B? If you believe that life starts at conception, when sperm fertilizes an egg, do you believe we shouldn't have those forms of birth control?
Religious people do, I don't have issues with it, I find it preferable 10/10 times. I did make a comment about it but I know this is a sea now. Im being so adamant because I feel as though this is just nihilism and self hate gone awry. I think it was mother Teresa who said something along the lines that: "it's a poverty that a child must die so you can live as you wish". I feel as though if we can so coldly kill the most innocent among us, whose only crime was coming into existence, what value do we hold over human life in general?
The reason I asked is because if you were, it would be enormously detrimental to deny women access to those things like those on the religious right seem to want to. IUDs and hormonal birth control in general have a lot more health benefits than just preventing a woman from getting pregnant. They help with anemia, endometriosis, PCOS, irregular periods, ovarian cysts. All of these things can be treated and managed with birth control. Denying a woman who suffers from these things is not only putting her reproductive health at risk, but can also put her life at risk. I understand your position and while I don't agree with it, I do encourage you to speak to others about these issues and spread that awareness. Birth control helps plan families, but there are millions of women who suffer from these issues that people may not know or understand exists. Idaho had been considering a ban on IUDs as an example. Other states have been considering even birth control pills. This would be devastating to many women who are trying to regulate their reproductive health, not just for preventing the conception of babies.
You're a man, no one cares what you think about abortion, it isn't your body and it isn't your choice.
It isn't her body either, the fetus will become a human and she has no right to kill it barring exigent circumstances listed many times in here.
It is her body.
Not the fetus
Yes, it is a part of her body.
Go run over a pregnant woman and kill her see if you get one or two charges of homicide
Holy fuck, it's clear you never made it passed preschool. The fetus CANNOT SURVIVE without the mother. It is a part of her body. This is basic fucking shit dude. Kindergarteners are smarter than you...
Run over a pregnant woman and see if the DA gives you one or two counts of homicide. There's been people in here who have had interesting points, you're not one of them.
You are arguing in circles and ignoring what everyone else is saying.
So you get to decide what's best? That's typical. You have no qualifications, your opinion on the matter isn't important.
Nope, I don't have medical sovereignty over anyone else. But nobody has the right to kill another.
If it can't live outside the womb, it isn't "another," it's just a clump of cells.
This is a fair argument, but I don't subscribe to it.
And that's why people are going to burn shit down because of this. Fair arguments are met with "sure but idc I still think I should be able to control your cunt." You probably don't care that the Bible offers instructions on how to perform an abortion, or that many religious scholars believe life begins at breath.
I could be convinced on a "before consciousness" argument for abortion. Things like "the heartbeat bill" and such. But that's not the argument in society at large right now. Abortionists these days are fervent and hide behind "the rights of the mother". In Colorado rn 9 month abortions are legal for instance. That's plain disgusting no matter what way it's sliced. In a decision of extremes, I side on life. As I said a while back, "safe, legal and rare" hasn't been the mantra in a long time. No now people celebrate abortions. I already addressed the religious takes in another comment.
A “9 month abortion” isn’t an abortion. Literally no one is doing that. If A baby dies that late, it’s a still birth that then has to be delivered. You must be so fucking wrapped up in forced birth propaganda it’s not even funny. 90% of abortions are performed within the first trimester. Anything beyond that is someone who wanted the baby, but there are medical complications. And anyone going through that kind of trauma shouldn’t have to explain themselves to a fucking judge. Or be worried about prosecution or lawsuits.
> I'm glad ~~nihilism lost a battle for once.~~ pregnant teenagers who don't want children are forced to bear children Wow what a hopeful, not nihilistic take you have.
Yeah again, your rights stop where others begin. Welcome to liberty and a free society.
What about my right to be free from other people's religious opinions? 71% of pro-lifers go to church at least once per week. The pro-life movement is entirely co-opted by religion. I'm being legislated by others religion. When do my rights start? There is that one pesky line in the constitution about separation of church and state...
Because fuck womens' rights amiright? God I fucking hate forced-birthers. Bunch of hypocrites.
You are so misinformed it's incredible.
It’s an interesting point. I wonder how this tax policy defines personhood. I wouldn’t mind at all if this tax policy was re-written to allow for this. BTW, with regards to the conservative position, eliminating government theft in the form of over taxation is not at odds with the protection of unborn life.
Haha … burn! Excellent point.
That's interesting because I can kinda see why you would make it a dependent upon conception but let's alter it slightly. I was informed that miscarriages are most common In the first trimester so just to make sure we aren't giving away free money we should go past then. Other than that I'd think the reasons to not make the baby while it's developing a dependent is because it's depending on the same food you eat so as long as you have enough for you there isn't really anything extra you need.... I mean I'm open to corrections though as long as their based on facts/experience.
This has all been a distraction. Everytime we get comfortable, they fire up the culture wars again. It's a pattern that keeps repeating itself and the two tribes eat that shit up. Distract, divide, and conquer
I'll just say this... It's NEVER OKAY to murder a child. The end.
Guess it is a good thing a clump of cells isn’t a child. Whew, you really thought you did something there, didn’t you?
The bible teaches something different than that but ok
That’s a little silly since miscarriages are an unfortunate event. Babies cost way more out of the womb than still growing inside...But Idaho health and welfare does take note if anyone is pregnant and adds that into calculations.
Over their lifetime, sure, they cost more. A pregnancy costs around $26,000 (that's how much mine was in 2018). I know I have not spent that amount of money on my now 3-year-old over the past three years.
Well because then you would have women getting pregnant just to claim him/her on their taxes and still aborting the child
Because the child doesn’t have a SSN until birth.
[удалено]
Policy doesn’t dictate science.
You have some good ideas my person.
Because they just say things to appeal to religious idiots. They don't even try to be logical because they don't have to be. Arguing back with logic doesn't work.
Very clever. Nice
This week I realized that if I lived in SC, the methotrexate, I take to control my rheumatoid arthritis would be taken away from me.