177
178

Baby killers, then & now... (imgur.com)

chabanaisStronger than derp. が 投稿

全 112 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]MustangMark83Libertarian Conservative 88ポイント89ポイント  (80子コメント)

I'm a right leaning independent and I can say that you're not going to win anything with this abortion debate. Abortion has been made legal for over 30 years, it's not going anywhere. Instead of focusing on things that turn off all independents from voting for your party, perhaps focus on taxes, national debt, jobs, immigration, etc.

[–]notmyrealnamebrah 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

Instead of focusing on things that turn off all independents from voting for your party

The abortion "debate" isn't about winning independents it's about moral right and wrong. Why should we compromise our beliefs to win a few votes?

[–]blueskysummer -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is the abortion debate about murder? Or is it about when someone believes life begins? Murder of life is always wrong even when it's capital punishment.

[–]chabanaisStronger than derp.[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

even when it's capital punishment

I'd disagree in that if a person took actions placing themselves in the situation to be executed they are not blameless.

[–]TP4MGR 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

Judging by the fact that this is the top post, I'd say that there's a high likelihood that we've had another liberal invasion to "enlighten" us.

[–]frogswithwings 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

or people are just tired of this issue

[–]TP4MGR -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not sure the fight against murder is something people will ever grow tired of.

[–]DJWhamoSingle Payer Proponent 7ポイント8ポイント  (29子コメント)

I'm of the opinion that making it completely illegal may be infeasible for the time being, but gradually restricting it by challenging how people think may not be impossible. For example, someone who supports abortion in principle may be convinced not to support third trimester abortions. Someone who supports it in principle may find the concept of gender-based abortions reprehensible. Someone who may support abortion in general, after seeing videos on the procedure, or an ultrasound of the child they are going to abort, may change their mind.

Ultimately, I think more can be accomplished if we address the hearts and conscious of people, as opposed to changing the law in that regard, but you have to understand something: if you see abortion as murder, then it's incredibly difficult in good conscience to support it's legality.

[–]Palmar 12ポイント13ポイント  (5子コメント)

Restricting it should absolutely be a thing.

Here: http://www.infopankki.fi/en/living-in-finland/health/abortion

liberal nordic finland has relatively strict abortion rules. I wonder if liberal Americans who so often idolize the scandinavian countries want to adopt these rules.

[–]hubda 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

I sincerely believe that the best way to restrict abortion is sex education. Just people knowing how they get pregnant (and how to prevent it) is much better than restricting/outlawing it

[–]Emanhavi 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's about as unrestricted as you can get.

"It is sufficient reason for an abortion (abortti) if giving birth to or taking care of the child would be a considerable strain in your life situation. In practice, one of the following can be considered sufficient reason:

family relations financial situation work situation housing future plans"

[–]lemonparty 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

You even read the whole fucking thing dude?? They have to ask to get one and state one of those reasons. And there is also this....holy SHIT.....

Abortion must be performed before the twelfth week of pregnancy. If there is an extremely strong reason, it can be performed later, but a special permit granted by Valvira, the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health (Valvira) is then required.

That is way more restrictive than the United States. A fucking permit for > 12 weeks? Most American women are just getting around to deciding on which clinic to go to at 12 weeks.

[–]Pr0toplasm -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Most American women are just getting around to deciding on which clinic to go to at 12 weeks.

The majority are performed before 12 weeks.

[–]stubingConservative -1ポイント0ポイント  (18子コメント)

if you see abortion as murder, then it's incredibly difficult in good conscience to support it's legality.

I don't think it is hard if you still believe in a human's right to bodily autonomy. I don't believe any human has the right to attach himself/herself to your body without your consent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

Also, some people will say "consenting to sex is consenting to being pregnant." While I heavily disagree with that statement, I still believe someone can take away consent to someone occupying their body at any time. We still allow people to take away consent to sex half way through. We understand that bodily autonomy is a very important right for humans.

[–]semantical 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

This argument is flawed for so many reasons. But I can give a few specific reasons.

The argument doesn't take into account responsibility. Let's say I have a potion I concocted that will harm the kidneys of someone after they ingest it. I know that if I poison them then I am the only person that can treat them by letting them use my kidneys. So I give this person the potion on purpose because I find doing so orgasmic. Now their kidneys are failing. Certainly I owe them compensation and should absolutely provide them the use of my kidneys for the nine month treatment.

Now, even if you don't agree with that intuition and decide to bite the bullet and claim that you're not obliged to compensate them for this situation for which you are responsible, then you have to at least admit that the intuition that you should provide compensation is at least as plausible as the intuition that you don't owe the violinist the use of your organs. So you can either admit that the responsibility objection goes through or bite the bullet and at least admit that it's at a stalemate. Therefore, the argument fails.

Now, the argument also fails because it assumes an extreme version of moral volunteerism where an obligation can only have moral or legal force if one voluntarily assumes it. Take for instance the example of a man and woman who engage in sexual intercourse and take all the necessary contraceptive precautions. The mother births the child. The man wants nothing to do with it. The mother gets a lawyer and requests to garnish the man's wages to support the child. The extreme moral volunteerism proposed by the Violinist analogy would suggest that it's morally wrong to require this man to pay child support. The man certainly can't be forced to pay child support to his brother's child, for instance. So it's acknowledged that he is obligated to pay because of his paternal relationship to the child and by virtue of his act of sex which resulted in the child. I think most people understand that we have an obligation, whether we planned for it or not, to care for the child.

Now it seems more plausible to me these intuitions about responsibility are better grounded than the extreme autonomy and moral volunteerism that is a consequence of taking the violinist argument seriously.

some people will say "consenting to sex is consenting to being pregnant." ... I heavily disagree with that

I'd certainly be interested to know why you disagree with that. I know why Thomson, Boonin, McDonagh, et al disagree with it but I think all their arguments fail. So I'd be interested to know what your argument is for why consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

...

All in all, the violinist argument is not taken seriously in the philosophical literature (anymore). Post-natal supremacists like Michael Tooley and Peter Singer (who also support infanticide, by the way) both seem to agree that the responsibility objection essentially demolishes the argument. I agree even though I am not a post-natal supremacists. I also happen to think that the reasoning behind the objection fails with many respects. I understand there are further responses to those objections to why it fails but I also think they fail.

[–]DJWhamoSingle Payer Proponent 3ポイント4ポイント  (10子コメント)

I wouldn't say that the attaching of one body to another is a matter of will, though. Nor is the continued attachment throughout the pregnancy. You can hardly fault the baby for the position nature has placed it in. And if taking away consent in this respect results in death...

[–]stubingConservative 5ポイント6ポイント  (9子コメント)

You can hardly fault the baby for the position nature has placed it in.

I don't blame the baby. However, that doesn't mean fuck bodily autonomy. The violinist didn't put himself in that position either.

And if taking away consent in this respect results in death...

Are you familiar with the bone marrow transplant list? It is where you sign up to be a donor and can be called in when needed. You consent to give your bone marrow. However, you can withdraw that consent at any time before you go in for surgery. That means you can get called in and at the last second back out, even if it means the death the other patient. We respect bodily autonomy more than the loss of life.

You may disagree with how we do the bone marrow transplant list, but I feel like you have to be one side or the other if you want to be ideologically consistent. Either we are allowed to force people to go into surgery to give up their bone marrow if they signed up at one point and not allow people to get abortions, or we keep the current system we have.

[–]rickjames730 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is a really good argument. I have tried to approach this problem with religious folk and the arguments I tend to make miss. This one makes a lot of sense and can connect with people.

[–]DJWhamoSingle Payer Proponent 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

This is a very good point, but couldn't one make a similar claim to the obligations of a parent to their already born child? The child will die on their own if they aren't taken care of to the point where they become self sufficient, no? Parents have bodily autonomy, but in this particular instance, they would be charged with neglect if they were to allow or intentionally cause such a thing to occur. Clearly, when one's own child is involved, the circumstances are different.

[–]stubingConservative 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm not following your scenario. So you are talking about a kid already born and the parents stop taking care of the child? I don't see what that has to do with bodily autonomy. The child doesn't need anything from the parents specifically once he/she is born (although breast milk is good for them). If the parents don't want anything to do with the child, they can give him/her up to the state. The state will probably come after them for money, but no bodily autonomy is being breached in this scenario.

[–]DJWhamoSingle Payer Proponent 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Well, I don't know if you heard about this, but a few years back there was an instance where a couple let their child starve to death because they were so obsessed with World of Warcraft that they didn't feed him. Now, if I'm understanding bodily autonomy correctly, they could have tried arguing that it was their bodies, why should they have to physically get up and feed the kid? But, because they were the child's parents, it was their responsibility.

[–]stubingConservative -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

You aren't understanding me correctly at all. There is a huge difference between someone living inside you or taking a large part of your body verse calling child services to tell them that you will no longer take care of your kids. If you don't want to be responsible for them, give to the state. It takes minimal effort to use the phone for 5 minutes.

If you promise to give someone 1,000 dollars in a contract a week from now (in exchange for whatever), and you decide not to pay it, it is perfectly reasonable for the courts to seize your assets from you. You owe that money. If you promise to give your bone barrow in a contract or deal and you decide to change your mind later, no one can force you to give that bone marrow even though you consented at first. We won't allowed someone to be forced into giving up part of their body if they aren't continuously consenting to the act.

[–]DJWhamoSingle Payer Proponent 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I understand you, I just think the right to do whatever you wish with your body comes secondary to your responsibilities. If you are a firefighter or a soldier, you sign up to put your comfort in second place to the safety of others. You may not sign up to be a mother, but it never the less becomes your responsibility when it happens. The unborn child has rights as well, and while you may argue those rights become secondary when they infringe on those of another, the same could be said in the instance where the mother decides to terminate the child's life.

[–]lemonparty 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

once you believe that it is a person with rights, the autonomy of the mother is of no more concern than if it were an infant or toddler.

an infant or toddler still restricts the autonomy of the parent every bit as much; maybe not physically "attached" but attached in every meaningful way. needs constant nourishment, attention, resources

Plus, autonomy is a weaksauce argument anyway.....if you take a knife and stab me in my kidneys, do I have a right to one of your kidneys to survive? I'd say, probably yes. You put me in the predicament of being attached to survive.

[–]aboardthegravyboat 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

A federal ban is not a good Conservative position, so I don't think many of us want that.

What we want, almost universally as Conservatives, is to overturn Roe v Wade and send the issue back to state legislators.

Abortion is barely an issue in Europe because it became legal through legislation by elected representatives. I believe the US is the only country to change its abortion policy through a court decision alone.

[–]Tercotta 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Canada also has legalized abortion through the courts. There was a 1969 law stating abortion was legal only if a group of doctors felt the medical well being of the mother was at stake, this law was struck down by our supreme court in 1988. Now we just have no law outlawing or explicitly legalizing it, thus making it free to happen.

[–]aboardthegravyboat -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

On what grounds did the court strike it down?

Here, the main issue is that we can't do anything about it through legislation because because Roe v Wade interpreted the 4th and 5th amendments to mean that a right to privacy is equivalent to a right to an abortion. Any legislation we have around the issue - late term abortion, partial-birth abortion, etc - has to tiptoe around a very nebulous environment put in place by the court where is a big damn mystery whether it would make it through a judicial challenge.

Any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution leaves plenty of room for a state-level ban on abortion, especially those that don't punish the mother. By the court's logic, any non-approved procedure should be legal because a ban would violate the same penumbra of a right to privacy cited by the court.

But here we are.

So, I didn't know that about Canada, but is it a situation where no future law can be passed, or was it an issue with that specific law and no more legislation has been attempted?

[–]awksomepenguin 16ポイント17ポイント  (32子コメント)

Slavery was legal in many places in the US for over 80 years before it was abolished. The fact that it was legal for so long was not a solid argument then, and it isn't a solid argument now.

[–]EspadaNumberNine 18ポイント19ポイント  (5子コメント)

And it took the bloodiest war in American history to end it. Is that what you see happening over abortion?

[–]awksomepenguin 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

No. I certainly hope not. The point is that just because something has been a certain way for a long time doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be changed.

[–]dustydeltaboy 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Like the Second Amendment?

[–]awksomepenguin 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

If it were to be done democratically, through the means appointed in the Constitution, then I would be okay with the repeal of the Second Amendment.

[–]dustydeltaboy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's the only way it could be done. I don't think repeal is necessary though. Clarification of wording, absolutely. The Second Amendment was clearly written to provide free states with armed militias when needed.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is no accident the only three words capitalized in the text of the SA are: Militia, State, and Arms. The SA was never intended to be a shield for anyone to hoard as many guns as possible, of whatever kind was available. It was meant, partly for a different time in the world, for an entirely different purpose. For states to protect themselves via state militias that are regulated. Hence the very first words "A well regulated Militia..."

[–]chabanaisStronger than derp.[S] 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm a right leaning independent and I can say that you're not going to win anything with this abortion debate.

Who said it's about "winning?"

[–]PillarOfWisdom 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Translation... It's okay to kill babies.

[–]RobertMuldoonfromJP 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

When you believe passionately about something, you don't view it through a political prism

[–]haroldlloyd888 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If we adopt liberal positions, there's no way we can lose!

[–]The_Donald_2016 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I agree. It's not going anywhere and it just scares away women voters. Just accept that it's going to happen and that most abortions would have been future Democrat voters anyway.

[–]chabanaisStronger than derp.[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not going anywhere and it just scares away women voters.

Including the anti-abortion ones?

[–]uberpowerLibertarian Conservative Traditionalist 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's a play on words. Hardcore abortion supporters will never acknowledge that an unborn baby is anything other than a fetus with zero rights. So it's not baby killing, because to them it's not a baby.

Language. The left insists on their words and definitions being the right ones, and they are winning that battle. Conservatives should fight for better more accurate truer language, and Trump, of all people, is currently leading that battle.

[–]blueskysummer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

not

I'm not a hardcore abortion supporter but I am a hardcore access to abortion supporter. I think education and access to birth control is the way to minimize abortion. It would certainly be a life to me from the moment I knew which is why I delayed sex for an unusually long time in life. Not because sex is meant for marriage but because sex carries a certain responsibility. I would also not expect someone else, like you, agreeing with me if I went for the scientific definition of a viable life, on that moment I found out life was growing in me. I don't get to decide for you!

[–]Mr_Kringerpants 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Interesting comments.

I love how liberals and "Independents" brigade to tell us that they are genuinely concerned and want to provide advice on how abortion is a losing issue for republicans. Like they really do care.

Also they find a post that really triggers them, like calling out communism in the death of millions and then proceed to tell us that it's not ok or relevant to use those remarks to debate points and that it is a turn-off to the general public to debate in that manner. Then you go to any other political / news sub on reddit and find a full page of variations on "Republicans are dumb", headlines taking things out of context, strawman arguments with 5000+ karma.

I get it, reddit is full of liberals. Liberals get almost the entirety of reddit to exhaust their political views openly and let off some steam in hyperbole; but damn you conservatives better not utter a single disparaging remark without proper sources or context or else you will get a lecture on the proper ways to debate from people who are willfully blind to their own seas of hypocrisy. Please go police your own and set an example.

[–]in_anger_clad 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

At first it confused me, why do they want the argument on their terms when it's not even in their house? But it's human nature I guess. Bunch of 23 year olds using alts to distort a representation of a group of people they dislike. I would say disagree with, but the extent of their argument and their attitude make me think it's genuine dislike. Not that the dislike isn't mirrored by some here, I guess.

[–]optionhome 4ポイント5ポイント  (20子コメント)

Liberals never have a problem with communist governments as in Vietnam who murder millions of innocents.

[–]ePrime 57ポイント58ポイント  (16子コメント)

Statements like this are toxic to actual discussion. You know, and everyone else here knows, that liberals are not ok with communist governments that murder millions. Just making a statement demonizing the opposition into murdering innocent sympathizers and pretending it's true makes it impossible to actually grasp the liberal position and attack it where it will make an actual difference and perhaps change minds.

[–]Disingenuous_ 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Just so everyone knows, this is called concern trolling.

This poster isn't a supporter. They are simply interested in derailing discussion.

[–]pumpyourstillskin -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

You know, and everyone else here knows, that liberals are not ok with communist governments that murder millions

Then why do they wear Che Guevara shirts? Why is Stalin's nickname "Uncle Joe"? Why is Anita Dunn's hero Mao?

Im sorry, but the fact is many, many liberals fantasize about the French Revolution and justify terror and totalitarianism.

[–]ePrime 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

I hope you aren't serious

[–]pumpyourstillskin -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Why does that not sound serious? Do liberals not wear Che Guevara tee shirts? Did Anita Dunn not say her hero was Mao?

[–]KingJak117 17ポイント18ポイント  (2子コメント)

Not true communism /s

[–]TeaPartyOverlordSupporter 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just like satellite temperature data are now Not True MeasurementsTM

[–]optionhome -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So true. Amazing how the liberal brain can categorize things as not "true" once the very thing that they supported ends in failure or worse.

[–]REMSheep 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

While there is evidence that US troops killed babies, there isn't much to support that people spit on soldiers.

[–]DJWhamoSingle Payer Proponent 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

What, you mean like photographs of people actually doing it? Anecdotal evidence might not hold up in court, but when you hear enough vets tell you how they were treated when they got back...

[–]pumpyourstillskin 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The then photo is from the 60s, and yes they did spit on soldiers.

[–]chabanaisStronger than derp.[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Source?

[–]oussanModerate -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

We're a small sub, but /r/republicanmemes would enjoy this kind of content.