Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on May 16, 2019 18:01:53 GMT
can we make haha reacts a thing here like how they are on facebook?
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on May 17, 2019 19:00:44 GMT
I'm all for more abortions
|
|
|
Post by fujiwarafan on May 18, 2019 13:26:15 GMT
Is this about the abortion law in Alabama right? I didn't know it's called "Heartbeat Bill".
It's normal that a few women lack maternal feelings, and it's also normal that a few of them will try to get rid of the baby, but when I see hundreds of thousands of women collectively marching with posters asking for their right to kill their sons and daughters they bring in their wombs for no serious reason, well, that's a problem to me because it means that society is going downhill.
I agree on abortion on only three occasions: rape/violence; if the mother is in serious danger of dying; serious physical and neurological malformations of the baby.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on May 18, 2019 18:07:08 GMT
I agree on abortion on only three occasions: rape/violence; if the mother is in serious danger of dying; serious physical and neurological malformations of the baby. Those are great reasons. Another great reason is if she simply doesn't want to go through the expensive and uncomfortable/painful 38-week process of carrying a fetus in her body, and going through the process of taking care of it or giving it up for adoption after painfully expelling it from her body. That's a good reason too. Bringing children into the world where they're not wanted or where the mothers aren't willing or able to take care of them is cruel to both parties. Women should only have children if they want to have children. It's that simple.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,072
|
Post by cherry68 on May 18, 2019 18:15:47 GMT
I agree on abortion on only three occasions: rape/violence; if the mother is in serious danger of dying; serious physical and neurological malformations of the baby. Those are great reasons. Another great reason is if she simply doesn't want to go through the expensive and uncomfortable/painful 38-week process of carrying a fetus in her body, and going through the process of taking care of it or giving it up for adoption after painfully expelling it from her body. That's a good reason too. Bringing children into the world where they're not wanted or where the mothers aren't willing or able to take care of them is cruel to both parties. Women should only have children if they want to have children. It's that simple. Firstly, for most women pregnancy isn't painful nor uncomfortable. About expenses, the price of normal health checkups during pregnancy is surely less than the price of an abortion. But most of all, women who don't want to get pregnant should simply use contraceptives. To make a sort of comparison, you are free to get drunk if you like, but you aren't free to drive after drinking alcohol because you could kill someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on May 18, 2019 19:46:54 GMT
Those are great reasons. Another great reason is if she simply doesn't want to go through the expensive and uncomfortable/painful 38-week process of carrying a fetus in her body, and going through the process of taking care of it or giving it up for adoption after painfully expelling it from her body. That's a good reason too. Bringing children into the world where they're not wanted or where the mothers aren't willing or able to take care of them is cruel to both parties. Women should only have children if they want to have children. It's that simple. But most of all, women who don't want to get pregnant should simply use contraceptives. Contraceptives are never 100% foolproof though, which leaves women with no safety nets should accidents happen. A 38-week expensive pregnancy term is a hell of a price to pay for an accident. Doesn't seem fair at all. Is that true? I'm not a woman so I have no idea but it looks incredibly difficult between the weight gain, the anxiety and depression, the morning sickness, having to change your diet, having to buy new clothes. And childbirth itself is supposed to be famously excruciating. And a quick google search will yield tons of results of women describing their struggles during the process. From everything I've seen/heard, I know that if I was a woman I'd never want to be pregnant. That's why it's not hard for me to imagine a woman being miserable during pregnancy especially if she doesn't want to have kids in the first place. It should be her choice, plain and simple. Ummm it varies by state but abortions with Planned Parenthood range from a cost of $350 to $950, so it's no cake-walk but it's less than a thousand and it's for a single procedure and follow-up appointments etc. Pregnancy is vastly more expensive overall. Even with insurance you'll be paying thousands of dollars for the delivery alone, in some states up to $10,000 dollars (and that's with insurance). And again, that's just for the delivery. Factoring in co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses and medications for all 38 weeks and you're talking about an even higher number. So no, pregnancy is not cheap and it's definitely not cheaper than an abortion, at least in the US.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,072
|
Post by cherry68 on May 18, 2019 20:19:42 GMT
Tommen_Saperstein To have almost zero possibilities to get pregnant, you can use two methods at the same time. Besides, the cost of an abortion is way higher as pregnancy goes further. In the last months you have to go through the labor of a dead baby. I had two children, getting through risky pregnancy, and I had a 25 hours labor to give birth to the first one, so I know how painful it can be, but I didn't get anesthetics that you can ask if you don't want to feel pain. I didn't change my diet, didn't take medicines, didn't feel depressed and didn't gain that much of a weight, and most women have the same experience. Anxiety comes from the fear for your baby's health mostly. I guess the health care system could pay for checkups during pregnancy, that's what people should fight for.
|
|
|
Post by fujiwarafan on May 18, 2019 21:26:19 GMT
I agree on abortion on only three occasions: rape/violence; if the mother is in serious danger of dying; serious physical and neurological malformations of the baby. Bringing children into the world where they're not wanted. That is a pretty arrogant thing to write. Who is to tell if the world wants them or not? Who's the judge? The mother? What man is inherently superior to another so that he has the power over his coming to life? Whenever men tried to replace God (or biology/nature/circle of life if you are an atheist) in his decisions, the outcome has always been disastrous.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,072
|
Post by cherry68 on May 18, 2019 21:42:43 GMT
Bringing children into the world where they're not wanted. That is a pretty arrogant thing to write. Who is to tell if the world wants them or not? Who's the judge? The mother? What man is inherently superior to another so that he has the power over his coming to life? Whenever men tried to replace God (or biology/nature/circle of life if you are an atheist) in his decisions, the outcome has always been disastrous. I have to add that law usually ignores the father. Sometimes the mother doesn't want to raise a child, but the father would be happy to do it. Why his will isn't taken in any consideration?
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on May 18, 2019 21:58:54 GMT
I agree on abortion on only three occasions: rape/violence; if the mother is in serious danger of dying; serious physical and neurological malformations of the baby. Those are great reasons. Another great reason is if she simply doesn't want to go through the expensive and uncomfortable/painful 38-week process of carrying a fetus in her body, and going through the process of taking care of it or giving it up for adoption after painfully expelling it from her body. That's a good reason too. Bringing children into the world where they're not wanted or where the mothers aren't willing or able to take care of them is cruel to both parties. Women should only have children if they want to have children. It's that simple. You are disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on May 18, 2019 22:01:33 GMT
Bringing children into the world where they're not wanted. That is a pretty arrogant thing to write. Who is to tell if the world wants them or not? Who's the judge? The mother? What man is inherently superior to another so that he has the power over his coming to life? Whenever men tried to replace God (or biology/nature/circle of life if you are an atheist) in his decisions, the outcome has always been disastrous. I was with you until you brought your stupid god into it.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 1,757
|
Post by dazed on May 18, 2019 22:53:00 GMT
It amazes me how much posts there have been from people I know about this issue (all of them being against the recent bills). I’ve never really seen it to this degree before.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on May 18, 2019 23:21:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on May 19, 2019 5:30:45 GMT
Certain parts of the country need an incest provision more than others.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on May 19, 2019 11:41:20 GMT
It's funny how anti-freedom Murica is most of the time. I'm generally not in favour of abortion either but at least my ideology is consistent (i.e. let the people decide for themselves damnit).
Should rename the freedom brand to "freedom (but only when it suits us)".
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on May 19, 2019 15:48:53 GMT
It's funny how anti-freedom Murica is most of the time. I'm generally not in favour of abortion either but at least my ideology is consistent (i.e. let the people decide for themselves damnit). Should rename the freedom brand to "freedom (but only when it suits us)". America (like all countries) don't have the freedom to murder each other. If you define fetuses as living humans (as I do) then you're gonna get people who want abortion to stop.
|
|
|
Post by fujiwarafan on May 19, 2019 16:20:48 GMT
That is a pretty arrogant thing to write. Who is to tell if the world wants them or not? Who's the judge? The mother? What man is inherently superior to another so that he has the power over his coming to life? Whenever men tried to replace God (or biology/nature/circle of life if you are an atheist) in his decisions, the outcome has always been disastrous. I was with you until you brought your stupid god into it. I put the atheist option in the brackets.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on May 19, 2019 16:35:13 GMT
It's funny how anti-freedom Murica is most of the time. I'm generally not in favour of abortion either but at least my ideology is consistent (i.e. let the people decide for themselves damnit). Should rename the freedom brand to "freedom (but only when it suits us)". America (like all countries) don't have the freedom to murder each other. Unless it's self-defense. Or the death penalty. Or war. Or policemen firing against unarmed civilians.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on May 19, 2019 17:16:28 GMT
America (like all countries) don't have the freedom to murder each other. Unless it's self-defense. Or the death penalty. Or war. Or policemen firing against unarmed civilians. Legal and moral reason but like I said you can't do it without self defense
That's the state determining someone's guilt, not an individual citizen
Again state
Very illegal
You imbecile.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on May 19, 2019 17:17:39 GMT
I was with you until you brought your stupid god into it. I put the atheist option in the brackets. You don't get right and wrong from those options.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on May 19, 2019 17:52:14 GMT
Bringing children into the world where they're not wanted. That is a pretty arrogant thing to write. Who is to tell if the world wants them or not? Who's the judge? The mother? What man is inherently superior to another so that he has the power over his coming to life? Whenever men tried to replace God (or biology/nature/circle of life if you are an atheist) in his decisions, the outcome has always been disastrous. Yeah I should think the mother's opinion should matter the most given that she's supposed to carry the thing in her body for several months before painfully pushing it out. I should think that person's opinion matters. And clearly you're coming at the argument from a shaky theistic position which ends the conversation right here as far as I'm concerned. Fetuses are not human beings and they don't have souls. I'm only concerned with what I see, so yes I'm going to default to the fully developed and reasoning individual's feelings on the issue who's mental and physical well-being should matter over a non-human underdeveloped fetus 100% of the time. And you can't replace something that has never existed. What I do know is that overpopulation is a thing. Unwanted children are a thing. Rampantly high childcare costs are a thing. I can respect someone's decision to want to bring a child into this world instead of preferably adopting children whose mothers didn't want them or couldn't afford to take care of them, but I'm also not going to judge a woman for choosing to terminate. To me this seems like a pretty rational and empathetic position. I'm glad you had a positive experience. Not all women do. The option to terminate a pregnancy offers a safety net to those woman who don't want to go through the process. Agreed on the last point. Maternity/pregnancy costs should have much better coverage in the US, but that applies to all our healthcare coverage. I was shocked to find out how expensive vaginal births are in some states, even insured ones. It's definitely a problem.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on May 19, 2019 18:14:51 GMT
Unless it's self-defense. Or the death penalty. Or war. Or policemen firing against unarmed civilians. Legal and moral reason but like I said you can't do it without self defense
That's the state determining someone's guilt, not an individual citizen
Again state
Very illegal
You imbecile.
Nope. Your argument was that killing is not a right in America, and yet there are multiple instances in which taking lives is either expressly permitted by law or largely approved/unsanctioned by the courts (see the majority of police officers being acquitted after murdering civilians). Your statement was inaccurate, and you providing justifications for each of the instances that I pointed out only proves my point: I'm not debating *why* killing is legal in those cases or whether it should be, I'm saying that it is. And you're agreeing with that. There is no right that is absolute, and that includes the right to life. Speaking of which, your argument was wrong from the outset because abortion *is* in fact legal thanks to Roe v. Wade, meaning that at least until this bait law reaches the Supreme Court, Americans *do* have the right that you're saying they don't. You can call it murder if you want, but it is legal.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,072
|
Post by cherry68 on May 19, 2019 18:42:55 GMT
Tommen_SapersteinYou haven't given me a single reason why a woman who doesn’t want children can't use contraceptives. Don't speak of particular cases whose number can't be relevant in the almost ONE MILLION abortions that happen every year in the US. Not having the option of abortion will just lead to a wider use of contraception, reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on May 19, 2019 18:57:16 GMT
Tommen_Saperstein You haven't given me a single reason why a woman who doesn’t want children can't use contraceptives. I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive. A woman who doesn't want to have children can use contraceptives. A pregnant woman who doesn't want to be pregnant can get an abortion. Both are true. We should provide greater access to sex education and coverage for contraceptives (which again can be really expensive in the US) and doing so would undoubtedly decrease the amount of abortions (which isn't a factor to me tbh because I don't see abortion as something that needs to be decreased), but again, these things and providing access to safe and legal abortion aren't mutually exclusive, especially because sometimes people change their minds or their situation changes suddenly and drastically and it becomes untenable to carry a pregnancy to term, for whatever reason. Reasons frankly don't matter to me, only the freedom for women to make that choice for themselves. Everyone is in a different situation. Access to abortion allows for a safety net for all possible scenarios.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,072
|
Post by cherry68 on May 19, 2019 19:07:00 GMT
|
|