- Apr 30, 2013
- 33,520
- 20,800
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Not true. They had lots of abortions even before widespread contraception.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Abortion is caused primarily for a hypersexualized cultured which originated with the increased use of contraception.
So thanks for solving a tiny bit part of the problem that was caused for contraception in the first place.
I personally think that we are going to start seeing birthrates plummet in general world wide for various reasons.
Japan is actually experiencing this right now.
Japan shrinking as birthrate falls to lowest level in history
.
The abortion aspect is only half of the conversation... While I consider myself "pro-choice" in terms of policy, if you'll notice, my earlier arguments centered around the ideas of making contraception available to prevent the unplanned pregnancies in the first place. No pregnancy means no need for abortion.
I personally am not a fan of abortion and would like to see it drop to 0 "in a perfect world".
The issue is that the GOP pushes to
-restrict access to sex education
-in some cases pushes for 'abstinence only' education
-gut social safety nets that could help low-income single mothers
-allow insurance companies to deny contraception coverage
-oppose measures that would ensure a living wage
...but then act appalled when some women make the choice to have an abortion.
In a nutshell "we're not going to educate you properly on sex, we're not going to educate you on proper contraception use, we're going to make sure insurance companies and employers don't provide coverage for such items cuz I don't shouldn't have to pay for that, and we're going to eliminate the social safety nets that would help you get by and raise a child if you're financially struggling". Then sit back on their moral high horse and criticize when a young woman making $10/hour doesn't want to try to take on task of raising a child.
All this is beating around the bush and ignoring the elephant in the room: pre-born equality is a human rights issue. Either we believe that all humans are equally deserving of basic human rights, or we do not. Imagine if I said that ideally I'd like to see Auschwitz camps drop to 0% in a real world; I'm against death camps personally, but in policy I'm pro-choice. It would be that I don't really believe in human equality and God-given rights.
Abortion is bigotry.
All this is beating around the bush and ignoring the elephant in the room: pre-born equality is a human rights issue. Either we believe that all humans are equally deserving of basic human rights, or we do not. Imagine if I said that ideally I'd like to see Auschwitz camps drop to 0% in a real world; I'm against death camps personally, but in policy I'm pro-choice. It would be that I don't really believe in human equality and God-given rights.
Abortion is bigotry.
Poisoning the well like this is a personal attack. If you can't convince people that's one thing, but blaming them for not being convinced as if it implies some sort of personal issue is another thing entirely.
That's why heart attack is one of the most common ways to die in the US, and obesity being really high. That's why people try to promote healthy life style and don't believe it is useless even when one could think otherwise.Like I said, it's not a "lack of faith" in other people controlling themselves. It's pragmatism with regards to knowing that no matter what someone says, some people will still make certain choices.
You can say "you shouldn't have sex" until you're blue in the face, it's unrealistic and statistically unfounded to think that's actually going to work on a large scale.
Much like I could tell someone "if you want to be healthier, you need to eat less fast food, less red meat, and exercise more", me saying that wouldn't be a valid replacement for investing in scientific/surgical/medical solutions to address heart disease.
That's why heart attack is one of the most common ways to die in the US, and obesity being really high. That's why people try to promote healthy life style and don't believe it is useless even when one could think otherwise.
Maybe nationally is difficult to promote abstinence because like I mentioned we are in a hypersexualized culture and pornography does its think to affect your brain but it won't stop people from saying what's going on.
Ensuring basic human equality extends to all humans is by no means a perfect solution. And, it's better than all the hand wringing and bush-beating you're doing. All we need is for a state to pass a law explicitly affirming the God-given equality of the preborn, and then for that to go to the SCOTUS, and for them to be faithful to the Constitution.Again, you're doing the same thing the other poster(s) were doing which is making "better" the enemy of "perfect".
Obviously you're using the concentration camp example for a certain emotional appeal, thus the reason you specifically chose that analogy.
So, I'll play along and keep that analogy going...
Many in the current pro-life GOP would be the equivalent of people giving lip service to the idea that they wanted to totally abolish all concentration camps, but then consistently voting for policies that made them more likely to pop up while refusing to participate in any systems that would drastically reduce them.
Now, if we're done with the silliness of comparing modern day abortion policies in the US to the the Third Reich, whaddya say we bring this conversation back into realm of reasonable conversation for a bit...
In most conversations about this topic (and this one has been no different), pro-life GOP members want to demonize abortion, claim they're 100% against it and that they'll settle for nothing less than total abolition of the practice, yet, not a single person from that camp has ever provided a feasible solution to that problem.
So, let's circle back to square one here and look at it from a pragmatic point of view.
When trying to solve the issue of unplanned pregnancies leading to abortions in the US, what is your proposed policy and solution?
Keeping in mind making it illegal and promoting abstinence only education, and telling people "don't have sex" aren't viable or realistic policy prescriptions as those have been tried and don't work, and just lead to back alley/black market solutions.
This is your chance to lay out your blueprint for the perfect solution that will eradicate all abortion forever...and remember, it has to be perfect, because that's the expectation that pro-life folks impose on others when they present their policies. When democrats present their solutions, they dismiss them because they claim to want eradication, and won't settle for merely a reduction.
Ensuring basic human equality extends to all humans is by no means a perfect solution. And, it's better than all the hand wringing and bush-beating you're doing. All we need is for a state to pass a law explicitly affirming the God-given equality of the preborn, and then for that to go to the SCOTUS, and for them to be faithful to the Constitution.
Meanwhile, point out the anti-equality, bigoted nature of abortion, and stigmatize it as worse than slavery. Because it is.
That is a better solution than what you're doing, because you're not focused on basic human rights.
That's more unrealistic talking points and not an actual solution to reducing the number of abortions.
"Outlawing slavery is not an actual solution to reducing the number of people who are enslaved. If you want to reduce the number of slaves you have to reduce the demand for cheap labor!".
Yeah, sure. We'd still be arguing about slavery if we took your approach.
Protecting basic human rights by outlawing and punishing infringements has a long history of working and increasing better protection of human rights. That's observable fact. Not a matter of opinion.
I see lots of common ground between you and I in your post.The abortion aspect is only half of the conversation... While I consider myself "pro-choice" in terms of policy, if you'll notice, my earlier arguments centered around the ideas of making contraception available to prevent the unplanned pregnancies in the first place. No pregnancy means no need for abortion.
I personally am not a fan of abortion and would like to see it drop to 0 "in a perfect world".
The issue is that the GOP pushes to
-restrict access to sex education
-in some cases pushes for 'abstinence only' education
-gut social safety nets that could help low-income single mothers
-allow insurance companies to deny contraception coverage
-oppose measures that would ensure a living wage
...but then act appalled when some women make the choice to have an abortion.
In a nutshell "we're not going to educate you properly on sex, we're not going to educate you on proper contraception use, we're going to make sure insurance companies and employers don't provide coverage for such items cuz I don't shouldn't have to pay for that, and we're going to eliminate the social safety nets that would help you get by and raise a child if you're financially struggling". Then sit back on their moral high horse and criticize when a young woman making $10/hour doesn't want to try to take on task of raising a child.
It's also pretty morally sick to treat the injustice of abortion as a "pragmatic" thing with no regards to justice for the children slaughtered.
What religion teaches about sexuality is true, sexual liberation has done anything but bring problems to society.Again, like I said, aiming for "total eradication" and dismissing anything measures aimed at reduction is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
If abortion is really the most vile evil on the planet, why would one want to dismiss all reduction measures in the name of "it's not worth doing if it can't get rid of all of it".
In logical fallacy terms, that's what's known as "appeal to futility"
It seems to me that many on the pro-life side want to have their cake and eat it too... They want abortion to go away, but they're unwilling to consider any reduction measures that don't involve forcing other to abide by their religious code with regards to sexuality.
Pornography has shown to mess up with your brain and make you really dependent on it, later you become tolerant and try to do other stuff. It is an issue since people get into it from children hood.Blaming porn and "hypersexualized culture" for people wanting to have sex makes about as much sense blaming grocery stores for people wanting to eat.
Mating (like eating) is a natural instinctive-driven function among mammals. With or without outside stimuli, people will want to do it. Like I said, it's instinctive.
What religion teaches about sexuality is true, sexual liberation has done anything but bring problems to society.
"Outlawing slavery is not an actual solution to reducing the number of people who are enslaved. If you want to reduce the number of slaves you have to reduce the demand for cheap labor!".
Yeah, sure. We'd still be arguing about slavery if we took your approach, meanwhile millions would work as slaves.
Protecting basic human rights by outlawing and punishing infringements has a long history of working and increasing better protection of human rights. That's observable fact. Not a matter of opinion.
It's also pretty morally sick to treat the injustice of abortion as a "pragmatic" thing with no regards to justice for the children slaughtered.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?