My Lemmy instance has been down for like a week

Wouldn’t it be more akin to feeding your own 2 month old? Do you think parents have an obligation to feed their child?

I wouldn’t say that, because there’s a guardianship responsibility there. When the choice has been made to have a child, there is legal responsibility.

In my scenario, I clearly didn’t.

I still don’t get the analogy. People have sex to have sex, not to get pregnant. Animals have sex too, and they’re likely unaware of the consequences. It’s natural. It feels good. It brings people closer together. If you’re batting at softball and don’t want to hit the ball, swing somewhere random?

The way the %'s work with contraceptives is if someone is consistently sexually active and reasonable pregnancy age. Simply taking a % of total women in the united states is a huge misstep in your calculation. Woman past the age of 40 have 1/6 of the chance of pregnancy as a 30 YO, is it fair to represent the 175m woman as prime pregnancy age? only 65m are between age 15-44. 30% of people haven’t had sex in the last year. So right off the bat, you drop 175m women to some 40m. It would reduce further if you included women who don’t have consistent sexual activity.

I used simple numbers out of laziness/simplicity. But you’ve also simplified your numbers. The probability applies to every time birth control is used, not just how many people use it. So let’s say it’s 30,000,000 instead of 175,000,000. If all of them had sex with protection exactly once you would be taking away the rights of 30,000 women. Average sex frequency is about once a week, which boosts that number to 1,560,000. Let’s say the average is heavily skewed, cut the number in half, every year you’re taking the choice away from 780,000 women who did not intentionally get pregnant.

According to some quick sources I googled, only 12% of abortions are because of health complications.

Okay, but that argument isn’t in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, you’re choosing which life you respect more.

Once again, the vast majority of abortions are ‘choosing between the life of the mother and kid’ - it’s simply that the baby is ‘undesirable’ to the mother. I don’t think killing my twin brother simply because I don’t desire him is a morally acceptable situation.

If the mother doesn’t have the means to take care of the kid, that kid is going to have an awful life, and so is the mother. If there is a man supporting the woman and he’s threatening to leave, it’s an even worse situation. You act as if the choice is as simple as “Oh, I don’t really feel like having a kid right now” but in reality it’s "Do I want a chance to live a comfortable life with food and housing, or do I want to bring a baby into the world right now and be struggling for the rest of my life, both to support the baby, take care of the baby, and raise it. Growing up in poverty fucking sucks, because Republicans keep gutting aid to these people. Your take on “It’s simply that the baby is ‘undesirable’ to the mother” is an incredible over simplification that leads me to believe you’re either affluent or have no idea what it takes to raise a child.

It’s clearly not. In some states, women can get abortions freely until birth. To some that matters, to me I see it as a states rights issue and they can have that if they’d like.

I was surprised to find that there are states that don’t have term limits. My personal position is the government doesn’t have any business interfering with this, so it’s not a state right one way or the other. People used to also debate the death penalty as a state right, and many republicans said “The federal government should ban abortions” while simultaneously saying “States should be allowed to choose the death penalty”. I’m not saying you feel that way, but I strongly believe it’s not any of your business to choose what decision a doctor and a patient make about their own lives, and it goes against everything conservatives claim they stand for.

No republican is talking about…

I agree. there are a billion issues we can talk about and I think they’re too stuck on stuff like abortion and would like them to focus on other problems too. That doesn’t change the fact that me being pro-life doesn’t mean i simply want to enslave women.

I already replied to this in the previous comment

If I’m being honest, it’s no where near as bad as Twitter. But still a dumpster fire

Understood and appreciated

Do you even remember what you were saying? Because that’s not it

That’s valid. I’ll come back and reply later, but I need to focus on work right now

Damn it Lemmy deleted my reply.

I had a whole lot to say, but I’ll just reply to the last point, at this point we’re disagreeing on the same things on repeat anyway.

I agree. there are a billion issues we can talk about and I think they’re too stuck on stuff like abortion and would like them to focus on other problems too. That doesn’t change the fact that me being pro-life doesn’t mean i simply want to enslave women.

I wouldn’t go as far as saying slavery, especially since we do have forced prison labor protected by the constitution. But it is stripping women of many of their rights. I don’t think holding pro-life beliefs is a bad thing, or makes you a bad person. I do think holding the belief that the government should enforce your religious beliefs on others is pretty awful though. I’m making the assumption that it’s religious, because I have never heard of someone thinking a fetus is a human before it has a brain who wasn’t also religious. Apologies if I’m wrong on that. But I firmly, strongly, without a doubt believe that a woman should have the right to make the choice for herself, and that your beliefs shouldn’t prevent her from having her own beliefs, or her doctors from having their own beliefs.

I realized something recently, too. Conservatives aren’t anti-government like they claim they are. They’re anti “not-their-government”. Conservatives don’t care if state governments stomp all over the constitution, they only care if the Federal government does. As a leftist, I don’t want any government stepping on anyone’s rights, state or Federal, and I believe the rights guaranteed by the constitution are above state law.

It’s actually a bit more favorable than I originally thought, though. Within 30 days of the contract being signed, all cars will have a cabin fan and heat shields.

Wow that means it’s actually worse than I thought, how could they not have had fans??

It is good though that they’re going to prioritize sending the new vehicles to hotter areas. I don’t like the “When possible” bit, they should really just all go to those areas. I don’t even see a financial reason not to, so it seems to me like it will be used for discrimination against poorer areas. Could be wrong, but that’s usually how it goes with language like that

The very fact that you think you, as an individual, have the capacity to determine what the general public’s opinions are based on your experience, means you either have super powers or you’re completely unaware of the fact that you don’t even have the capacity to remember enough people to get a reasonable sample of how people feel, you’re unaware of cognitive biases, and you don’t understand numbers. If you managed to actually talk to every single one of the 1.382 million people in San Diego and get their opinion on this random subject most of them probably haven’t even thought about, you would be sampling 0.4% of the population of the country.

I mean literally. I don’t know how you can sit here and say ‘okay, well someone might believe that it’s a human life in the womb, but absolutely no way in hell could they argue that a woman ending it’s life could be wrong!!’ - if you can’t grasp a basic concept that ending a human life could be considered immoral, we shouldn’t continue this conversation.

I don’t believe a woman aborting a fetus is ending it’s life any more than refusing to feed someone starving on the street. Maybe you could debate that, but it’s so cut and dry to me that it’s just so hard to see the other arguments as compelling.

It actually is. the vast vast vast majority of adults know that if they have sex, there’s a risk of pregnancy. You know this, right? That’s like me walking up at softball and swinging, hitting the ball and getting pissed because I didn’t know that swinging could end in the possibility of me hitting the ball.

Awful analogy. Your intention in softball is to hit the ball. The intention in sex is to follow your human instinct and desire towards pleasure.

99.9% effective for some, and combining contraceptives makes the rates extremely small.

There are 175,000,000+ women in this country. 0.1% of that is 175,000. That’s a lot of women you’re saying intentionally got pregnant.

Did I say that?

You say you believe in having exceptions for specific cases like rape. I’m guessing you would put nonviable pregnancies in there too. The thing is, almost every single abortion performed fits into an exception category. So by arguing in favor of more restrictions, you are indeed saying that.

There’s an argument that abortions don’t respect the babies lives, male or female.

Okay, but that argument isn’t in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, you’re choosing which life you respect more. The baby or the woman carrying. If I truly believed a fetus was a human, I would still say the government doesn’t get to choose who’s rights are more important. Also, as a matter of opinion I would still say the woman who is actually alive and has an actual brain and memories and experience should actually have more rights than the fetus.

If you have 1 year old baby and you don’t feed him and in result they die, do you not think there’s a policy that punishes you for this? Actually good counterpoint I hadn’t thought of. In my opinion it’s still different and a very special case because you’re the legal guardian in that case. If someone drops a baby off at your doorstep and you don’t feed it and it dies, there aren’t legal protections there.

They didn’t force women to have sex. They didn’t force women to get pregnant. They are simply saying that if a human life is created, that it has inherent value and with such there’s a moral question on whether ending a human life without their consent is wrong.

Then why aren’t republicans fighting to stop people pulling the plug on life support? Every day thousands of people who can’t consent are taken off life support because they’re brain dead or because their insurance won’t pay for it any more. Yes, that moral question is valid to ask. What’s not valid is forcing the choice on others based on your own personal beliefs, especially if you acknowledge that the topic is debatable.

I’ve already mentioned multiple times about exceptions. If you want to keep bringing this up, you can. My answer has stayed consistent.

I thought you had, but I couldn’t find it for some reason so I went under the assumption you thought otherwise. Here’s the thing about this though, we already have term limits and restrictions pretty much everywhere. Banning abortions with exceptions is already a won battle. There are so many other issues, the very fact that people care so much about this one particular issue is sexist on its own. No republican is talking about water supply quality, about domestic terrorism, about the atrocities being committed at our borders, homelessness, police brutality, school shootings, veterans being denied healthcare they were promised, companies extorting people with things like insulin prices or healthcare costs in general, climate change, asbestos, literal slavery in our prisons, actual Nazis rallying, the fact that the people died in the insurrection. They’re focused on ruining the lives of women over clumps of cells that don’t even have brains.

One could easily argue that the government letting the woman end the fetus’ life is ruining the fetus’ right to his/her own life and body.

No, not really. Unless you’re going to argue some stranger on the street who needs an organ donated to live is having their rights infringed by the government not forcing you to give them your organs to save them. The only difference is the location of the “human”. Also, regardless, if you are making this argument, then either you’re still saying the fetus has more rights than the woman, or the government shouldn’t intervene because both have equal rights.

Your first sentence says that even if I believe the fetus is a human life that should be protected, your reply would be the same, so why’d you switch your terminology back? You should have said “You’re putting a human life that should be protected above a woman’s” - once again, you try and pull this emotional terminology rather than being consistent.

I don’t believe a fetus is a human. But sure, put the word human there instead, because if your argument is that this unborn human’s life should be protected above a woman’s, you’re still taking away that woman’s rights.

I think all 3 have equal rights, and that none of us should be able to end the life of the others.

The fetus can not live on its own. Saying an abortion is ending the life of the fetus is like saying taking someone off life support is ending their life. While technically true, are you the type of person that would also argue the government should disallow the removal of life support?

But the fact that it’s the mothers intentional actions that brought the life to the world

I’m sorry, but if you honestly think it’s up to a woman whether or not she gets pregnant, you’re incredibly out of touch with reality. Contraceptives aren’t 100% effective. Rape is a thing. Hell, humans make mistakes sometimes. Women don’t just go around getting abortions because they felt like it, it’s not a fun procedure and it’s not without risk. The biggest factor that makes this an irrelevant argument is there is literally no other example of a policy you would support that would infringe on someone’s rights in the same way. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of examples where people put other people’s lives in danger but they still have rights. Why focus on this one specific issue when there are so many others? The only answer is sexism. Not respecting Women’s rights. There are zero implemented policies that would force someone to feed someone else who’s dying, shelter them, donate blood to them, or do anything that would keep them alive. And I doubt you would argue for them if there were.

I wish more republicans will say this - if we want to be pro life - reduce unwanted pregnancies, provide care to pregnant women and fund options for the baby if they want to provide that baby to a more willing family.

This is fine, but what’s not fine is supporting government policies that force the decision on women. Especially blanket ones with no exceptions.

If you think “The fetus is a human life that should be protected” by the government, my reply would be exactly the same. It’s no different. The government protecting a fetus is the government taking away a woman’s right to her own life and body. Whatever grey areas exist in the debates that have gone on over the decades, this is not grey area. It’s black and white.

If I told you I wanted the government to protect homeless people’s right to live by forcing you to donate blood, I’m putting the homeless person’s rights above yours. If you want the government to force women to literally risk their lives for 9 months you’re putting a pile of cells’s rights above a woman’s. There is no fallacy here, there is no “but what about”, it’s plain and simple. Either you see women as humans with equal rights and value as yourself, or you believe a fetus has more rights than a woman. The only other possibility is you are the type who actually does want the government to force people to donate blood and organs. I met one once, quite the lunatic.

It’s heavily implied in the context. It’s okay for people to be morally opposed to abortion, but the moment it becomes about making the decision for someone else, the conversation is no longer about the fetus, it’s about the woman carrying it and her rights as a human.

I know a lot of people just use TikTok and Instagram and don’t care to find an alternative, but I don’t know what that number scales to outside of my personal circles

Why don’t you believe the woman has inherent value and rights then? Even if I did think a lump of cells had human rights, nobody has the right to force a human to risk their lives for another human outside the womb, so why do you believe the government should force a human to risk their lives for an unborn one in the womb?

Okay this argument is hypocritical AF. If this was about the fetus not the women, you wouldn’t support an outright ban. Twins are being killed because of you. Children are being forced to carry because of you. Women are dying because of you. In some cases you are forcing women against their will to attempt to save a lump of cells that is already dead. If the government forced you to risk your life for an unborn child that wasn’t attached to you, you would flip shit. If the government forced men to take responsibility for an unborn fetus in any way, you would flip shit.

You don’t respect the autonomy or rights of a woman if you believe in forcing decisions on them about their body, hard stop. There is no wiggle room for you to argue that the fetus matters, because you wouldn’t apply that to any other situation in life. Stop acting like it’s the moral choice when it’s literally forcing woman to risk their lives against their will. Those women are already alive, why don’t their rights and lives matter to you?

Okay this argument is hypocritical AF. First, your two month old niece isn’t about to risk killing you and then die. Second, if she was going to die without you giving her an organ transplant, do you think it’s okay for the government to force you to do that surgery against your will? What about if it wasn’t your niece? What if you’re 10?

You don’t respect the autonomy of a woman if you believe in forcing decisions on them about their body, hard stop. There is no wiggle room for you to argue that the fetus matters, because you wouldn’t apply that to any other situation in life. Stop acting like it’s the moral choice when it’s literally forcing woman to risk their lives against their will. Those women are already alive, why don’t their rights and lives matter to you?

Are we sure about that? Many people exclusively used third party apps and wouldn’t use it otherwise

I don’t consider it stoopping to their level, it’s pointing out how stupid they sound so others reading might actually think about it before blindly agreeing and parroting. These people don’t deserve our tolerance any more, they’ve had plenty of time to have an actual original thought by now.

Why are you so dumb that you think regular people agree with you, when most regular people actually don’t give a shit about whether or not other people want to wear a mask? Do you get your dick in a blender over whether or not people you don’t even know wear a helmet on a bike? Or do you live in some shitty town with population 2000 and think that somehow your experience reflects the other 350,000,000 people in this country?

Most regular people think you’re a pathetic dumbass who doesn’t even think for yourself.

So wait, are you telling me when the government made you wear a mask in public spaces that was infringing on your freedoms and it was okay for you to get your dick in a blender, but when in and out tells people they can’t wear masks, it’s childish fugazin anger directed at pointless bullshit? Why don’t you mushroom heads ever stop to think how stupid you sound crying about your freedoms and crying about other people having normal discussions about their freedoms. Go free yourself.