81–90 of 331 posts
A former girlfriend of mine went to what she thought was a clinic, and was effectively scared out of having one, and had twins at 18. These scummy tactics work, or people wouldn't do them.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like nonsense. Can you explain how it was ‘imposing a regime’, when nobody was forced to do anything? If you didn’t want an abortion you just…didn’t have one. Kinda sounds like religious people are the ones actually trying to impose a regime to me. Because I couldn’t possibly care less what anyones preferred god thinks, yet religious beliefs are being used to drive political changes that affect everyone.
From their perspective, it's more analogous to murder. Not exactly something you just live and let be.
Does anyone actually address how religion is a big factor at play here? It's skipped over every time but this is very much a religious war happening here. The Catholics in the Supreme Court are overturning human rights because it goes against the recent dogmas their faith prescribed them to believe.
That introduces another variable that shouldn't matter. It also assumes that every catholic is anti-abortion. People and their beliefs are more complex than that.
A former girlfriend of mine went to what she thought was a clinic, and was effectively scared out of having one, and had twins at 18. These scummy tactics work, or people wouldn't do them.
Quoted post unavailable.
how someone can feel not able to raise a child? how about trying to understand why this person feels not able, and what needs to change so that they will feel able?
i don't see anyone working towards a society where people are actually supported to raise their children.
people are promised help, but when the baby is there, no help is actually forthcoming.
to help save lives, we need to work on our society to be helpful and welcoming to the children when they are actually born, and not just feel good about convincing someone to not have an abortion, with complete disregard for what comes afterwards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s because the Supreme Court has imposed for 50 years an extremely liberal abortion regime on an extremely conservative country. Roe guarantees elective abortions up to viability, which is around 22-24 weeks. But by 13-14 weeks, the fetus looks like a baby—it has hands and feet and a face. It can suck its thumb and kick. Most of Europe draws a line for elective abortions (absent exceptions) around that timeframe: h…
Sounds like nonsense. Can you explain how it was ‘imposing a regime’, when nobody was forced to do anything? If you didn’t want an abortion you just…didn’t have one. Kinda sounds like religious people are the ones actually trying to impose a regime to me. Because I couldn’t possibly care less what anyones preferred god thinks, yet religious beliefs are being used to drive political changes that affect everyone.
I suspect this story will be Cambridge Analytica 2.0: making use of the tools sold by big tech to achieve an ideological end. (Isn't everyone doing this?)
Are you asking, "aren't left-wing groups saving the information of right-wingers to the later deploy state power against them after changing relevant laws", or "doesn't every ideological group occasionally dox it's opponents"? I think those are different questions.
This is why young children fail the Smarties test. They now know the tube has a pencil in it, therefore under this simplified model other children know the tube has a pencil in it and that's the assumption they report when asked.
But under this model if I believe something then that's what you believe too, and if you deny it then you are definitely lying. Loads of Americans resolutely believe that all humans know the Christian God is real, and it follows (under the too simple model) that whatever it is they believe about that God is necessarily apparent to everybody in the world, therefore anybody who says otherwise must be lying.
Does anyone actually address how religion is a big factor at play here? It's skipped over every time but this is very much a religious war happening here. The Catholics in the Supreme Court are overturning human rights because it goes against the recent dogmas their faith prescribed them to believe.
We've raised a 2-3 generation on popular dogma in which human life is the most sacred thing imaginable and now we have a society full of people do not generally posses the requisite mental faculties to have adult discussion about subjects that involve harm to people (or apparently fetuses). We're reaping what we sowed.
You see this same "arrive at an obviously sub-optimal solution because we can't nut up and cause a little quantifiable harm to get to the better solution" problem across many subjects. Abortion is just one of the most obvious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s because the Supreme Court has imposed for 50 years an extremely liberal abortion regime on an extremely conservative country. Roe guarantees elective abortions up to viability, which is around 22-24 weeks. But by 13-14 weeks, the fetus looks like a baby—it has hands and feet and a face. It can suck its thumb and kick. Most of Europe draws a line for elective abortions (absent exceptions) around that timeframe: h…
Sounds like nonsense. Can you explain how it was ‘imposing a regime’, when nobody was forced to do anything? If you didn’t want an abortion you just…didn’t have one. Kinda sounds like religious people are the ones actually trying to impose a regime to me. Because I couldn’t possibly care less what anyones preferred god thinks, yet religious beliefs are being used to drive political changes that affect everyone.
I find this whole thing so puzzling. In the UK, not so different from the USA, this is not really a thing at all. Even amongst Christians I have never heard it brought up. Is it a political thing, and if so how did it become so?
It's a wedge issue where neither side will give any ground, which makes it exploitable. If you figure out a way to tie a wedge issue to the rest of your political platform you're virtually guaranteed support from one side or another. IMO one side has been much, much better at exploiting this fact and has has achieved great power despite representing less than a plurality of voters.
I find this whole thing so puzzling. In the UK, not so different from the USA, this is not really a thing at all. Even amongst Christians I have never heard it brought up. Is it a political thing, and if so how did it become so?
Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued roe v wade was a mistake because it placed abortion rights into constitutional law rather than letting democratic institutions decide an issue like this. The reason it’s not an issue in Europe is because opposing sides all get a say in this and arrive at a compromise, namely abortion allowed up to 12 weeks which is fairly standard in most European countries. But because row v wade basi…
That's an oversimplification of a very nuanced and pragmatic view that is better explained here:
"What Ruth Bader Ginsburg really said about Roe v. Wade", Washington Post https://archive.ph/jJENv
It's not that she felt the rights granted by Roe were wrong to grant, she was worried that it would not be insulated from legal challenges.