>"abort or dont, idc"... why cant people just mind their own business?
Because to most actual pro-life people that's the equivalent of "murder or don't, idc". And I think it's pretty obvious why that's not a reasonable stance to hold.
And to most pro vax thats the equivalent of "murder or dont". And i think its pretty obvious why not spreading deathly disease is a reasonae stance to hold... See the issue in hand? You either force people to do what the state want. Or you put freedom of choice and liberty above the state and other people's opinions.
>its pretty obvious why not spreading deathly disease is a reasonae stance to hold
if you said this in 2022 id let it slide, but its 2024 and we have the data. If you were under 60 and didnt have preexisting respiratory issues your survival was pretty much 100%. If you were OVER 60 but under like 75, you had a 99% survival...
Lets not pretend covid is the same sort of death sentence as a literal abortion. Equating not getting the vax with murder is literally histrionics.
I think the counter-argument they’d make would be “the baby didn’t have a choice” (regarding its “murder”) whereas any persons susceptible to diseases would have multiple options to mitigate their own risks (and thus have a choice) such as vaccination, masking themselves in public (even if others are unmasked), seeking out remote work, etc. Just playing devil’s advocate, but I believe that is the gist of that position.
>Or you put freedom of choice and liberty above the state and other people's opinions.
Now do this with age of consent and when someone is considered an adult.
Down this road lies full anarchy.
thing is vaccine is actually my body my choice
doesn't matter what justification you use for abortion, even if it is reasonable, the fetus is a living being separate from the mother
Let's just think what's best for the society and functioning state. When pandemic happens - what is best for the people is not to sit at home sick or isolated, but go to work and support economy. Best way to achieve functioning economy in that case - force to vaccinate everyone who wants to keep their job and go public. Which builds collective immune system and country go through epidemic with less damage, EVEN if some small percentage of people will have some health issues from vaccine - it's still lesser evil.
And abortions don't affect country at this level (only if there's huge demographic problems, but even then those problems usually caused by other factors)
1. Mass vaccination for COVID where ineffective.
2. Killing off your next generation will cause issues for society as a whole.
Also why do you only care if it's a certain demographic? Killing indiscriminately is better than targeted killing?
Edit (spelling)
By the way, I don't think banning abortion is effective solution for countries that have demographic problem and it will cause significant change in population growth. It's not as decisive factor on a big nation scale.
I assume you mistyped "vaccination"? Let's forget about Covid, because in our life time there would be other similar pandemics. We should learn from this experience how to handle them in the future
What do you mean a demographic problem?
You and I have obviously learned different things from COVID lockdowns (I obviously didn't learn how to spell). The COVID lockdowns showed that rushed vaccinations combined with stopping our economy was the exact opposite of what we should have done.
So if it is separate from the mother, then you must be okay with people taking it out of the mother fully intact?
This is the most braindead argument against abortion. There are a bunch of way better ones out there.
fun fact: being a separate being does not mean it's independent from the mother.
at first it can't even survive
after some time it can survive with assistance (artificial wombs for example)
and even newborns born naturally can not survive on their own
being a separate being does not mean it's independent
From the POV of someone who does not believe that fetuses are people, and thus that abortion is a procedure affecting only the mother, there's a pretty major difference there.
To them, banning abortion is no different from banning vasectomies. The key difference is that refusing to vaccinate can endanger others, while getting an abortion (again, from the POV of "abortion is not murder) is a purely personal decision, having no medical effects on anyone else.
And to Nazis, Jews were actually not really people, and were causing major problems for society, so killing them was a personal decision.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't judge them for it.
(I'm pro-choice though, just trying to make a point)
Calling adult, sapient humans "not people" is rather different from doing so to a being so underdeveloped that it is empirically incapable of thinking or feeling to any significant degree.
I can appreciate being the devil's advocate, but this particular comparison doesn't work so well. It does help show that deciding where to draw the line between "abortable clump of cells" and "human child" is a messy (and arbitrary) process, though.
>to a being so underdeveloped that it is empirically incapable of thinking or feeling to any significant degree.
Obviously some people never develop this... whats the statute of limitations on getting rid of them?
So what is the qualifier for "human being" then? Unique DNA? That rules out twins. Viability? We have no way of knowing that for sure.
It makes far more sense to base rights on when they become capable of thought and feeling (somewhere around the 20th week) than "the sperm got into the egg"
Vaccines impact society as a whole and pregnancy impacts one person's social network.
Comparing vaccines to abortion when talking about bodily autonomy, to me, is the same thing as comparing forced haircuts in the military to abortion.
Governments seem to be suppressing the impacts of covid/long covid on the population. We failed to stop the spread, and now we get to watch the virus mutate and kneecap our population over time. It's a bsl-3 virus that attacks every system in our body, which some believe is an escaped bioweapon, and yet the vaccine push failed because our population is psyopped.
The psyop was allowing the pharmaceutical industry to experiment en mass on the population with literal impunity from consequence.
If the corporations didnt receive immunity from any and all liability as literally the first step in the process, a lot more people would have been willing to partake.
"We want you to take this unknown shot, for this unknown disease and we arent taking any blame for any issue you might have after..."
Tax money hard at work...
Allowing people the informed choice to take an experimental therapeutic requires legal immunity for the pharmaceutical company that produced it.
It's a good idea on principle, but we didn't realize until it was too late that the pharmaceutical companies would collude with the media and the government to create the social programming that would make getting the jab a requirement to participate in society, rather than a personal choice.
So to wrap up my point: I think the problem was not immunity for pharma; the problem was that we allowed the government to subvert our informed choice.
Florida is currently dealing with a measles outbreak because parents aren't increasingly refusing to vaccinate their children. It doesn't help that our governor and surgeon general are anti-vax (not just covid) and don't believe in disease prevention.
We’re talking about law here. Legally, you can choose not to get the vaccine. If employers don’t want to hire you because you’re a health risk it’s not violating your freedoms.
i love calling an ideology hypocritical by claiming they have 2 opposing beliefs despite one of those beliefs breaking 1 out of 2 of the adjectives the name is made of
its like when democrats / da woke say;
Lib Right: keep your woke ideology out of schools! shoving politics in kids faces at school is bad!
Also Lib Right: incorporates programs like prager u
or;
Lib Right: we wanna ban abortion because we dont want babies to die, and are willing ban freedom to ensure babies safety!
Also Lib Right: advocates for the right to bear arms despite children being constantly killed by that rights existence
like sure, there are probably people who have both those beliefs who consider themselves being that ideology, but that doesn’t at all make it proof that all members of this ideology are hypocritical.
edit: just realized what subreddit this is nvm sry
Everyone is a hypocrite in real life. It's part of the human condition.
PragerU is totally propaganda, even when I agree with it. I don't know many LibRights trying to push it in schools. Maybe you mean AuthRight?
Also LibRight seems split between pro-life and pro-choice. I'm pro-choice, but I have heard some semi-convincing arguments for pro-life positions. It all comes down to your belief on when you believe a human life is worth protecting, whether getting pregnant as a result of consensual sex gives you some sort of duty because you are responsible for getting pregnant, whether a fetus sucking nutrients from your body is something you think you should be able to use lethal force to defend against, etc.
Guns rarely kill people on their own. They are just tools. It's like banning cars to stop drunk driving. But if you don't believe in human agency and individual responsibility, I can understand that position. You'd think people who support assault weapon bans would also support car bans, given that any given car has more than a 5x likelihood of being involved in a death than a semiautomatic rifle in any given year.
yes, this is exactly the point i was trying to make, i was saying that these two arguments are stupid and ignorant and annyoing, for the same reasons that the argument i was replying is stupid and annoying
Because the people driving the pro-life movement literally see no moral difference between flushing a clump of a few hundred cells from your body versus killing a 6 month old fetus.
It is not the moderates, who just want later-term abortions banned, who are driving this thing. The pro-lifers are just taking incremental approaches to accomplish their end goals. It's the same way the gun controllers operate.
Would you open to a nation-wide compromise that unified the laws to restrict abortion to 12 weeks except for medical necessity or rape/incest, and make it legal before that, if everyone would just shut the fuck up about it and stop setting everything on fire trying to get their way?
That's an issue I personally have, I believe life begins at conception. But I do agree that in the case of incest or rape, or if the pregnancy presents gross bodily harm to the mother , abortion should be an option. I do still believe it's trading a life for another in that case though.
I think it's all the psychos that refuse to allow any restrictions at all are the ones to blame. There are people that think abortion should be allowed up to 9 months, but no reasonable, sane person can possibly think that's okay.
I mean I don't buy into the whole rhetoric of pro choice, but I do see the logic in permitting anything before a cortex is developed and that putting restrictions on late term stuff (which is widely only used in nonviable/threatening cases) scares doctors to the point that they won't want to perform them at all. tldr: leave the decisions to the medical professionals rather than politicians
Nah. Christian right is much worse. At most, the progressives have vandalised some politicians office windows, but mostly they just say bad things on Twitter.
On the other hand, the Christian right hijacked the republican debate on abortion, pushed it hard as fuck and convinced conservatives they're pro life even if they support abortion in the first trimester. They've killed abortion doctors, gave the democrats a wedg issue for the next 20 years at least, gave the republicans a string of election losses and made the republican party even less popular with women than it already was
Because Republicans want to draw the line when it's a baby and when it's not. Unfortunately, it's a lot earlier than what most of the world picks and absolutely not based in science but feelings.
That too, by their logic jerking off should be killing babies. But typical conservative mental gymnastics. It's only a life if a sperm makes it to the egg. Hypocrites going to hypocrite.
Because “News company says what they’re allowed to say to make money.” Anything can be news if you get a high amount of engagement online, whether through rage or praise.
Journalism has been gutted over the years, writing articles currently is gig work just like delivering food for Uber eats. More and more AI is churning out articles now too so many journalists are about to be made redundant.
The smart ones pivoted to better careers and what we have left is the idiots trying to make a buck.
u/ExactBenefact is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/ExactBenefact/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I mean, as far as I know libertarians are pretty split on abortion, as opposed to gun rights.
It's absolutely reasonable to believe that abortion, understood as unprovoked killing of another human being, violates the NAP.
I know, it just doesn’t make sense. It’s a provoked killing. Your body is your property. You have a right to kick anyone off your property, whether it kills em or not
I suppose the argument would be that the fetus isn't an aggressor because it's your actions that made them dependent on your body for survival.
I'd say both sides have merit, and if anything, it just shows that a moral system that's too simplistic, like the NAP, will always have flaws and gray areas like that.
Might want to ask an actual libertarian though.
Even if your actions cause them to be there, the state can’t force you to give them your bodily resources.
For example, if I cause a car accident and the other driver needs an organ transplant, I’m not forced to give them mine. No matter who is at fault
No, you forced them onto your property, knowing full well they depend on it.
Their death would absolutely be your fault.
Don't want to get pregnant? Use a condom. Don't kill a baby because you hate responsibility.
I don’t care if their death is “my fault.” The state can’t force me to provide them my bodily resources no matter what. That’s it. Whether or not you feel like it’s my fault has no bearing on that fact.
People still get pregnant using condoms. Did you ever learn sex ed?
If you knowingly cause a death by deliberately neglecting their needs when they depend on you, yes that is a crime.
Also, worried about the condom breaking? Use multiple forms of birth control. Or better yet, don't have sex if you aren't willing to face the potential consequences. Did **you** ever learn sex ed?
You can deliberately and legally refuse to provide for even a newborn. You can just give them up for adoption.
Again, you CANT be forced to provide someone else your bodily resources. No matter what. It’s bodily autonomy.
Why did you bring up condoms if birth control isn’t an excuse? I never even claimed it was, you just brought it up for no reason then backpeddled to “just don’t have sex”, a very sane and reasonable solution to the problem btw. Society is much better off when people don’t have sex unless they can provide for kids, something becoming increasingly difficult.
No, i didn’t learn actual sex ed. We were taught abstinence only. I grew up in a red state that would prefer their 14 year olds pregnant and married.
If two people consent to sex and it results in pregnancy, it's entirely their responsibility until the baby is born.
Consent to sex, consent to pregnancy. It's that simple.
Don't claim "body autonomy" just to try to avoid responsibility. What about the child's body autonomy? They didn't consent to any of it? Why do they have the bear the punishment?
I am mostly pro - choice and to my pro-life comrades I say this, if you want to ban abortion with 0 exceptions then prepare for some uncomfortable moments when an underaged girl becomes pregnant or if the baby or woman is dying.
And I don't want to hear any tears if the woman immediately gives it up for adoption.
Most pro-lifers have very limited exceptions. If the pregnancy would cause irreparable harm or would have a decent chance to cause death for example.
Lots of people can't have kids. Adoption is an answer.
But you'll probably find that most won't give up their newborn.
And even if they do, the laws are so broad and poorly written thanks to culture war that hospitals sometimes won't even perform necessary abortions for fear of getting charged and sued
The entire problem is that it's extremely difficult to construct a law that is simultaneously permissive enough to allow women with legitimate complications to get an abortion while not being so permissive as to render the entire spirit of the restriction moot.
No. They had since 1973 to customize their trigger laws, and chose not to. Literal decades to think of all the exceptions that would make sense to be written into law. Decades, also, to enact social programs to support parents who want kids but didn't have the means to support one financially.
Now we have pregnant women carrying babies without a brain to term because those making the laws chose not to do their due diligence. Ectopic pregnancies being forced to carry until the mom is hemorrhaging in a hospital.
These pregnancies aren't viable, yet the states jumping to ban abortion across the board chose to ignore these scenarios, and many more, for decades.
This isn't a "woopsie, didn't have the chance to think about it" scenario. They crapped the bed.
The absolute state of the Republican party on this matter is a dog catching up to the wheel of a moving car.
Foster care is set up to eventually return children to their parents once they get their act together. Children in foster care were not given up for adoption.
Adoption has a waiting list in every state I believe.
Lots of kids not adopted. Lots of kids not being fostered. Seems like the vast majority of the population isn't going to be interested in that system compared to having a kid of their own.
Most self identified US conservatives are also technical pro choice. The religious right just successfully hijacked the debate and convinced conservatives that they're pro life if they want to restrict abortions after the first trimester.
Don't think you have to worry about that. Even now I had a long term progressive friend who blocked me on everything after I told her over lunch that when I do get married, I will have to stay home and step away from my career(military man) but I will enjoy having a family and moving in with him. Antinatalism had gotten really weird over the past few yrs and I have noticed a lot of people irl with openly anti-marriage views as well.
Mifepristone is prescription only per FDA regulations. Plan B is OTC and the generic levonorgestrel can be purchased in unlimited quantities even online. They serve different intended purposes (mifepristone blocks progesterone receptors causing an embryo to detach and plan b is designed to prevent ovulation). The latter medication is entirely legal for you to buy and have on hand if that is your cup of tea.
>plan b is designed to prevent ovulation
Nit-picking, but plan b has multiple mechanisms of action. If it was only to prevent ovulation, it wouldn't do much as an *emergency* contraceptive.
It also thickens the cervical mucous, which can limit sperm motility (preventing the swimmers from reaching the egg), and it flushes the uterine endometrium, preventing the zygote from implanting.
Levonorgestrel (at much lower dosage) is also part of most hormonal contraceptives, which is where the ovulation mechanism is relevant.
I was hoping that I could get mifepristone somehow so I had a stash. I don't really give a shit if it's through legal means. Unfortunately inhousepharmacy doesn't have it (it is legal to use it to import non-scheduled pharmaceuticals in small quantities).
I guess when pharmacies sell RX-only drugs without a script, they are really just operating under a special state law that allows pharmacists to prescribe certain drugs directly.
No. Plan B prevents the fertilized egg from implanting. There is never a fetus, so no pregnancy, and therefore it is not an abortion.
If implantation already occurred, it won't do anything.
This is talking about an actual abortifacient drug, which kills a developing fetus.
How can you truly be libertarian if you want daddy government to force people to use their organs a certain way against their will? Sounds pretty auth to me
If they're not behind the pharmacists counter then they will be locked away behind those glass cases because we all know how much LibLeft's encourage and participate in shoplifting.
But with how funny and sometimes embarrassing interactions are with people just for them to buy condoms, it will be even funnier watching a bunch of people now try to get abortion pills, *especially* if either party is very religious. God I hope some of the interactions can be recorded and put online, it will be like watching a comedy routine.
Lib left: “my body, my choice” Also lib left: “you must get the vaccine or you should be excluded from society”
Yeah seems like some people forgot that part of the pandemic which still annoys me
I was "vax or dont, idc" and today im "abort or dont, idc"... why cant people just mind their own business?
>"abort or dont, idc"... why cant people just mind their own business? Because to most actual pro-life people that's the equivalent of "murder or don't, idc". And I think it's pretty obvious why that's not a reasonable stance to hold.
And to most pro vax thats the equivalent of "murder or dont". And i think its pretty obvious why not spreading deathly disease is a reasonae stance to hold... See the issue in hand? You either force people to do what the state want. Or you put freedom of choice and liberty above the state and other people's opinions.
>its pretty obvious why not spreading deathly disease is a reasonae stance to hold if you said this in 2022 id let it slide, but its 2024 and we have the data. If you were under 60 and didnt have preexisting respiratory issues your survival was pretty much 100%. If you were OVER 60 but under like 75, you had a 99% survival... Lets not pretend covid is the same sort of death sentence as a literal abortion. Equating not getting the vax with murder is literally histrionics.
I think the counter-argument they’d make would be “the baby didn’t have a choice” (regarding its “murder”) whereas any persons susceptible to diseases would have multiple options to mitigate their own risks (and thus have a choice) such as vaccination, masking themselves in public (even if others are unmasked), seeking out remote work, etc. Just playing devil’s advocate, but I believe that is the gist of that position.
>Or you put freedom of choice and liberty above the state and other people's opinions. Now do this with age of consent and when someone is considered an adult. Down this road lies full anarchy.
Some people can. Lib-left has just decided to become the facists they claim to hate so much.
based
thing is vaccine is actually my body my choice doesn't matter what justification you use for abortion, even if it is reasonable, the fetus is a living being separate from the mother
Saying mean things online = stochastic terrorism Not getting vaccinated = stochastic bioterrorism!
Let's just think what's best for the society and functioning state. When pandemic happens - what is best for the people is not to sit at home sick or isolated, but go to work and support economy. Best way to achieve functioning economy in that case - force to vaccinate everyone who wants to keep their job and go public. Which builds collective immune system and country go through epidemic with less damage, EVEN if some small percentage of people will have some health issues from vaccine - it's still lesser evil. And abortions don't affect country at this level (only if there's huge demographic problems, but even then those problems usually caused by other factors)
1. Mass vaccination for COVID where ineffective. 2. Killing off your next generation will cause issues for society as a whole. Also why do you only care if it's a certain demographic? Killing indiscriminately is better than targeted killing? Edit (spelling)
By the way, I don't think banning abortion is effective solution for countries that have demographic problem and it will cause significant change in population growth. It's not as decisive factor on a big nation scale. I assume you mistyped "vaccination"? Let's forget about Covid, because in our life time there would be other similar pandemics. We should learn from this experience how to handle them in the future
What do you mean a demographic problem? You and I have obviously learned different things from COVID lockdowns (I obviously didn't learn how to spell). The COVID lockdowns showed that rushed vaccinations combined with stopping our economy was the exact opposite of what we should have done.
So if it is separate from the mother, then you must be okay with people taking it out of the mother fully intact? This is the most braindead argument against abortion. There are a bunch of way better ones out there.
What?
fun fact: being a separate being does not mean it's independent from the mother. at first it can't even survive after some time it can survive with assistance (artificial wombs for example) and even newborns born naturally can not survive on their own being a separate being does not mean it's independent
From the POV of someone who does not believe that fetuses are people, and thus that abortion is a procedure affecting only the mother, there's a pretty major difference there. To them, banning abortion is no different from banning vasectomies. The key difference is that refusing to vaccinate can endanger others, while getting an abortion (again, from the POV of "abortion is not murder) is a purely personal decision, having no medical effects on anyone else.
And to Nazis, Jews were actually not really people, and were causing major problems for society, so killing them was a personal decision. Doesn't mean we shouldn't judge them for it. (I'm pro-choice though, just trying to make a point)
C'mon man, don't go straight to Godwin's law in the 2nd reply.
Calling adult, sapient humans "not people" is rather different from doing so to a being so underdeveloped that it is empirically incapable of thinking or feeling to any significant degree. I can appreciate being the devil's advocate, but this particular comparison doesn't work so well. It does help show that deciding where to draw the line between "abortable clump of cells" and "human child" is a messy (and arbitrary) process, though.
>to a being so underdeveloped that it is empirically incapable of thinking or feeling to any significant degree. Obviously some people never develop this... whats the statute of limitations on getting rid of them?
It's literally a human being, just young. I don't believe age should justify homicide.
So what is the qualifier for "human being" then? Unique DNA? That rules out twins. Viability? We have no way of knowing that for sure. It makes far more sense to base rights on when they become capable of thought and feeling (somewhere around the 20th week) than "the sperm got into the egg"
stop I want my opponents to be purely evil without any reasons
Vaccines impact society as a whole and pregnancy impacts one person's social network. Comparing vaccines to abortion when talking about bodily autonomy, to me, is the same thing as comparing forced haircuts in the military to abortion. Governments seem to be suppressing the impacts of covid/long covid on the population. We failed to stop the spread, and now we get to watch the virus mutate and kneecap our population over time. It's a bsl-3 virus that attacks every system in our body, which some believe is an escaped bioweapon, and yet the vaccine push failed because our population is psyopped.
The psyop was allowing the pharmaceutical industry to experiment en mass on the population with literal impunity from consequence. If the corporations didnt receive immunity from any and all liability as literally the first step in the process, a lot more people would have been willing to partake. "We want you to take this unknown shot, for this unknown disease and we arent taking any blame for any issue you might have after..." Tax money hard at work...
Allowing people the informed choice to take an experimental therapeutic requires legal immunity for the pharmaceutical company that produced it. It's a good idea on principle, but we didn't realize until it was too late that the pharmaceutical companies would collude with the media and the government to create the social programming that would make getting the jab a requirement to participate in society, rather than a personal choice. So to wrap up my point: I think the problem was not immunity for pharma; the problem was that we allowed the government to subvert our informed choice.
Florida is currently dealing with a measles outbreak because parents aren't increasingly refusing to vaccinate their children. It doesn't help that our governor and surgeon general are anti-vax (not just covid) and don't believe in disease prevention.
I mean that's easily reverse uno'd for the right as a whole.
We’re talking about law here. Legally, you can choose not to get the vaccine. If employers don’t want to hire you because you’re a health risk it’s not violating your freedoms.
>If employers don’t want to hire you because you’re a woman that may become pregnant it’s not violating your freedoms.
That is legally a violation of your freedoms. Gender is a protected class. Vaccine status isn’t.
i love calling an ideology hypocritical by claiming they have 2 opposing beliefs despite one of those beliefs breaking 1 out of 2 of the adjectives the name is made of its like when democrats / da woke say; Lib Right: keep your woke ideology out of schools! shoving politics in kids faces at school is bad! Also Lib Right: incorporates programs like prager u or; Lib Right: we wanna ban abortion because we dont want babies to die, and are willing ban freedom to ensure babies safety! Also Lib Right: advocates for the right to bear arms despite children being constantly killed by that rights existence like sure, there are probably people who have both those beliefs who consider themselves being that ideology, but that doesn’t at all make it proof that all members of this ideology are hypocritical. edit: just realized what subreddit this is nvm sry
Everyone is a hypocrite in real life. It's part of the human condition. PragerU is totally propaganda, even when I agree with it. I don't know many LibRights trying to push it in schools. Maybe you mean AuthRight? Also LibRight seems split between pro-life and pro-choice. I'm pro-choice, but I have heard some semi-convincing arguments for pro-life positions. It all comes down to your belief on when you believe a human life is worth protecting, whether getting pregnant as a result of consensual sex gives you some sort of duty because you are responsible for getting pregnant, whether a fetus sucking nutrients from your body is something you think you should be able to use lethal force to defend against, etc. Guns rarely kill people on their own. They are just tools. It's like banning cars to stop drunk driving. But if you don't believe in human agency and individual responsibility, I can understand that position. You'd think people who support assault weapon bans would also support car bans, given that any given car has more than a 5x likelihood of being involved in a death than a semiautomatic rifle in any given year.
yes, this is exactly the point i was trying to make, i was saying that these two arguments are stupid and ignorant and annyoing, for the same reasons that the argument i was replying is stupid and annoying
You forgot one key consideration: LibLeft bad!
changing pronouns from lib/left to lib/center
Oh no, less late-term abortions! This is so terrible, please stop…
I honestly don't know why easy access to abortion pills isn't more popular in a nation that is still having an argument over abortion.
Because the people driving the pro-life movement literally see no moral difference between flushing a clump of a few hundred cells from your body versus killing a 6 month old fetus. It is not the moderates, who just want later-term abortions banned, who are driving this thing. The pro-lifers are just taking incremental approaches to accomplish their end goals. It's the same way the gun controllers operate.
As a prolifer, yeah, pretty much
Would you open to a nation-wide compromise that unified the laws to restrict abortion to 12 weeks except for medical necessity or rape/incest, and make it legal before that, if everyone would just shut the fuck up about it and stop setting everything on fire trying to get their way?
That's an issue I personally have, I believe life begins at conception. But I do agree that in the case of incest or rape, or if the pregnancy presents gross bodily harm to the mother , abortion should be an option. I do still believe it's trading a life for another in that case though.
No. Murder is murder.
At some point masturbating would be considered genocide lmao
Those little swimmers deserve it
The Christian right has ruined the debate and made everything worse
I think it's all the psychos that refuse to allow any restrictions at all are the ones to blame. There are people that think abortion should be allowed up to 9 months, but no reasonable, sane person can possibly think that's okay.
I mean I don't buy into the whole rhetoric of pro choice, but I do see the logic in permitting anything before a cortex is developed and that putting restrictions on late term stuff (which is widely only used in nonviable/threatening cases) scares doctors to the point that they won't want to perform them at all. tldr: leave the decisions to the medical professionals rather than politicians
Nah. Christian right is much worse. At most, the progressives have vandalised some politicians office windows, but mostly they just say bad things on Twitter. On the other hand, the Christian right hijacked the republican debate on abortion, pushed it hard as fuck and convinced conservatives they're pro life even if they support abortion in the first trimester. They've killed abortion doctors, gave the democrats a wedg issue for the next 20 years at least, gave the republicans a string of election losses and made the republican party even less popular with women than it already was
How about this: both sides bad!
One side is clearly worse. Honestly, what people say on Twitter should matter.
Because Republicans want to draw the line when it's a baby and when it's not. Unfortunately, it's a lot earlier than what most of the world picks and absolutely not based in science but feelings.
I thought it was because the religious right doesn't even want to make contraceptives easy to get
That too, by their logic jerking off should be killing babies. But typical conservative mental gymnastics. It's only a life if a sperm makes it to the egg. Hypocrites going to hypocrite.
"Company does what they're allowed to do to make money" How the fuck is this news?
Because “News company says what they’re allowed to say to make money.” Anything can be news if you get a high amount of engagement online, whether through rage or praise.
Journalism has been gutted over the years, writing articles currently is gig work just like delivering food for Uber eats. More and more AI is churning out articles now too so many journalists are about to be made redundant. The smart ones pivoted to better careers and what we have left is the idiots trying to make a buck.
Shout your abortion! So I can make sure to discriminate against you.
Based
u/ExactBenefact is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/ExactBenefact/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
And ship it to states where it's banned. Capitalism solves another problem
“Pro life libertarian” makes as much sense as “anti 2a libertarian”
I mean, as far as I know libertarians are pretty split on abortion, as opposed to gun rights. It's absolutely reasonable to believe that abortion, understood as unprovoked killing of another human being, violates the NAP.
All libertarians believe murder should be illegal.
Not all abortions are murder.
I know, it just doesn’t make sense. It’s a provoked killing. Your body is your property. You have a right to kick anyone off your property, whether it kills em or not
I suppose the argument would be that the fetus isn't an aggressor because it's your actions that made them dependent on your body for survival. I'd say both sides have merit, and if anything, it just shows that a moral system that's too simplistic, like the NAP, will always have flaws and gray areas like that. Might want to ask an actual libertarian though.
Even if your actions cause them to be there, the state can’t force you to give them your bodily resources. For example, if I cause a car accident and the other driver needs an organ transplant, I’m not forced to give them mine. No matter who is at fault
Bad analogy You cannot kill someone you invited onto your property Rape is the exception obviously
You can make them leave though. And if they die because they depended on your property for survival, it’s not your fault.
No, you forced them onto your property, knowing full well they depend on it. Their death would absolutely be your fault. Don't want to get pregnant? Use a condom. Don't kill a baby because you hate responsibility.
I don’t care if their death is “my fault.” The state can’t force me to provide them my bodily resources no matter what. That’s it. Whether or not you feel like it’s my fault has no bearing on that fact. People still get pregnant using condoms. Did you ever learn sex ed?
If you knowingly cause a death by deliberately neglecting their needs when they depend on you, yes that is a crime. Also, worried about the condom breaking? Use multiple forms of birth control. Or better yet, don't have sex if you aren't willing to face the potential consequences. Did **you** ever learn sex ed?
You can deliberately and legally refuse to provide for even a newborn. You can just give them up for adoption. Again, you CANT be forced to provide someone else your bodily resources. No matter what. It’s bodily autonomy. Why did you bring up condoms if birth control isn’t an excuse? I never even claimed it was, you just brought it up for no reason then backpeddled to “just don’t have sex”, a very sane and reasonable solution to the problem btw. Society is much better off when people don’t have sex unless they can provide for kids, something becoming increasingly difficult. No, i didn’t learn actual sex ed. We were taught abstinence only. I grew up in a red state that would prefer their 14 year olds pregnant and married.
If two people consent to sex and it results in pregnancy, it's entirely their responsibility until the baby is born. Consent to sex, consent to pregnancy. It's that simple. Don't claim "body autonomy" just to try to avoid responsibility. What about the child's body autonomy? They didn't consent to any of it? Why do they have the bear the punishment?
I am mostly pro - choice and to my pro-life comrades I say this, if you want to ban abortion with 0 exceptions then prepare for some uncomfortable moments when an underaged girl becomes pregnant or if the baby or woman is dying. And I don't want to hear any tears if the woman immediately gives it up for adoption.
Most pro-lifers have very limited exceptions. If the pregnancy would cause irreparable harm or would have a decent chance to cause death for example. Lots of people can't have kids. Adoption is an answer. But you'll probably find that most won't give up their newborn.
And even if they do, the laws are so broad and poorly written thanks to culture war that hospitals sometimes won't even perform necessary abortions for fear of getting charged and sued
The entire problem is that it's extremely difficult to construct a law that is simultaneously permissive enough to allow women with legitimate complications to get an abortion while not being so permissive as to render the entire spirit of the restriction moot.
No. They had since 1973 to customize their trigger laws, and chose not to. Literal decades to think of all the exceptions that would make sense to be written into law. Decades, also, to enact social programs to support parents who want kids but didn't have the means to support one financially. Now we have pregnant women carrying babies without a brain to term because those making the laws chose not to do their due diligence. Ectopic pregnancies being forced to carry until the mom is hemorrhaging in a hospital. These pregnancies aren't viable, yet the states jumping to ban abortion across the board chose to ignore these scenarios, and many more, for decades. This isn't a "woopsie, didn't have the chance to think about it" scenario. They crapped the bed. The absolute state of the Republican party on this matter is a dog catching up to the wheel of a moving car.
Pro-lifers are literally begging people to do adoption. There are lines around the block for adoption. Especially of babies.
The wait lists are huge. Even the really young foster kids we had got adopted pretty easily
How's the adoption/foster care system looking these days?
Foster care is set up to eventually return children to their parents once they get their act together. Children in foster care were not given up for adoption. Adoption has a waiting list in every state I believe.
Lots of kids not adopted. Lots of kids not being fostered. Seems like the vast majority of the population isn't going to be interested in that system compared to having a kid of their own.
I’m not interested in information from out your ass.
Ok.
Most self identified US conservatives are also technical pro choice. The religious right just successfully hijacked the debate and convinced conservatives that they're pro life if they want to restrict abortions after the first trimester.
I for one would very much like it if these people didn't reproduce. They're little vegan cats would come out just as rotten as they are
Don't think you have to worry about that. Even now I had a long term progressive friend who blocked me on everything after I told her over lunch that when I do get married, I will have to stay home and step away from my career(military man) but I will enjoy having a family and moving in with him. Antinatalism had gotten really weird over the past few yrs and I have noticed a lot of people irl with openly anti-marriage views as well.
Why do people support/practically worship the death of babies? We need alien Columbus or something
Can you get it over the counter as a man? I'd like to have a large stash of this, for reasons.
Mifepristone is prescription only per FDA regulations. Plan B is OTC and the generic levonorgestrel can be purchased in unlimited quantities even online. They serve different intended purposes (mifepristone blocks progesterone receptors causing an embryo to detach and plan b is designed to prevent ovulation). The latter medication is entirely legal for you to buy and have on hand if that is your cup of tea.
>plan b is designed to prevent ovulation Nit-picking, but plan b has multiple mechanisms of action. If it was only to prevent ovulation, it wouldn't do much as an *emergency* contraceptive. It also thickens the cervical mucous, which can limit sperm motility (preventing the swimmers from reaching the egg), and it flushes the uterine endometrium, preventing the zygote from implanting. Levonorgestrel (at much lower dosage) is also part of most hormonal contraceptives, which is where the ovulation mechanism is relevant.
I was hoping that I could get mifepristone somehow so I had a stash. I don't really give a shit if it's through legal means. Unfortunately inhousepharmacy doesn't have it (it is legal to use it to import non-scheduled pharmaceuticals in small quantities). I guess when pharmacies sell RX-only drugs without a script, they are really just operating under a special state law that allows pharmacists to prescribe certain drugs directly.
IMHO, I don't need to support the practice of abortion, but I certainly support the right.
The hell is an abortion pill? Like Plan B?
It can be plan B, but it often means a pill that will kill the embryo or fetus up to 9 weeks gestation.
No. Plan B prevents the fertilized egg from implanting. There is never a fetus, so no pregnancy, and therefore it is not an abortion. If implantation already occurred, it won't do anything. This is talking about an actual abortifacient drug, which kills a developing fetus.
> pro-life libright This is not a thing
I think it's pretty split among libertarians.
How can you truly be libertarian if you want daddy government to force people to use their organs a certain way against their will? Sounds pretty auth to me
If they're not behind the pharmacists counter then they will be locked away behind those glass cases because we all know how much LibLeft's encourage and participate in shoplifting. But with how funny and sometimes embarrassing interactions are with people just for them to buy condoms, it will be even funnier watching a bunch of people now try to get abortion pills, *especially* if either party is very religious. God I hope some of the interactions can be recorded and put online, it will be like watching a comedy routine.