|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 07 2022 19:21 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 19:18 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:03 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. Sperm is life in an early form, but I don't consider masturbation murder. Eggs are life in an early form, but we don't consider a women's period murder. There is a point where a clump of cells goes from being just that, a clump of cells, to a life. Which is why practically every nation has a line for abortions. Where that line is can be debated but the notion that one must consider a collection of cells with no functional brain or organs as a life just seems silly. Gonna have to disagree with sperm/eggs being an early form of life. Also a fetus is what you have once we move past the "tiny cluster of cells" and the organs begin to develop. I doubt EnDeR would agree that abortion should be banned once we move past the tiny cluster of cells stage - so again I would say that the desperate need to frame it this way just shows a lack of confidence in saying that a woman should be allowed to kill a fetus that is living off her body. You can disagree all you like, but sperm and egg cells are living tissue according to any definition you like. So is skin, a recently chopped off toe, and.. mosquitoes, or for that matter, tuberculosis bacteria.
I'll add the adjective "human" before life since it seems necessary here. So I'll also say none of those other things are an early form of human life either.
|
On August 07 2022 19:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 19:02 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 07 2022 17:54 Silvanel wrote:
It's rather obvious that his point is - "If You can dismiss an issue as important to many people as abortion by simply saying it's made up" then why don't dismiss some other also important issues the same way. After all, ultimately, all ethical issues are made up, they are not mandated by physical laws of the universe but are a result of society development. We can play this game if you like. Make up a definition of personhood and regardless of the criteria chosen, a black man would fullfil that definition. Make up a definition for baby and I severely doubt that you could demonstrate that a bundle of cells fulfills it. ok. my fictitious and absolutely atrocious definition of personhood is, among other things, having a skin tone lighter than 6 in the Munsell color scheme.
Fair. I'd argue that any definition about personhood that results in over half the world's population being classed as not people is not a good one.
|
On August 07 2022 09:08 Husyelt wrote:
Christ watching Trumps cpac texas speech via Pakman, and he sounds so dead, as does the audience 90% of the time
CPAC is like watching Nuremberg before the Nazis took power.
He looked like a beaten corpse at the Saudi sponsored golf tournament. It was creepy to see the extensive bootlicking by the cultits still going on harder than ever. If he manages to stay alive and out of legal consequences, takes the nomination and burns DeSantis as well on his way to 2024, there's only the truely crazy left in the GOP.
|
On August 07 2022 19:26 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 19:18 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:03 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. Sperm is life in an early form, but I don't consider masturbation murder. Eggs are life in an early form, but we don't consider a women's period murder. There is a point where a clump of cells goes from being just that, a clump of cells, to a life. Which is why practically every nation has a line for abortions. Where that line is can be debated but the notion that one must consider a collection of cells with no functional brain or organs as a life just seems silly. Gonna have to disagree with sperm/eggs being an early form of life. Also a fetus is what you have once we move past the "tiny cluster of cells" and the organs begin to develop. I doubt EnDeR would agree that abortion should be banned once we move past the tiny cluster of cells stage - so again I would say that the desperate need to frame it this way just shows a lack of confidence in saying that a woman should be allowed to kill a fetus that is living off her body. I'll agree that once it's recognizably human and can survive outside the womb, getting an abortion should be strictly for medical reasons. But that's because I'd define "baby" as a tiny human. I think the distinction is important.
Viability is the stage in fetal development when an appendix becomes a baby
|
On August 07 2022 19:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 19:26 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 07 2022 19:18 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:03 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. Sperm is life in an early form, but I don't consider masturbation murder. Eggs are life in an early form, but we don't consider a women's period murder. There is a point where a clump of cells goes from being just that, a clump of cells, to a life. Which is why practically every nation has a line for abortions. Where that line is can be debated but the notion that one must consider a collection of cells with no functional brain or organs as a life just seems silly. Gonna have to disagree with sperm/eggs being an early form of life. Also a fetus is what you have once we move past the "tiny cluster of cells" and the organs begin to develop. I doubt EnDeR would agree that abortion should be banned once we move past the tiny cluster of cells stage - so again I would say that the desperate need to frame it this way just shows a lack of confidence in saying that a woman should be allowed to kill a fetus that is living off her body. I'll agree that once it's recognizably human and can survive outside the womb, getting an abortion should be strictly for medical reasons. But that's because I'd define "baby" as a tiny human. I think the distinction is important. Viability is the stage in fetal development when an appendix becomes a baby
Yes. I don't think we are in disagreement here. My issue comes when people put the label 'baby' on something you'd need to do a DNA test to find out if it's even human.
|
On August 07 2022 19:29 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 19:21 Acrofales wrote:On August 07 2022 19:18 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:03 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. Sperm is life in an early form, but I don't consider masturbation murder. Eggs are life in an early form, but we don't consider a women's period murder. There is a point where a clump of cells goes from being just that, a clump of cells, to a life. Which is why practically every nation has a line for abortions. Where that line is can be debated but the notion that one must consider a collection of cells with no functional brain or organs as a life just seems silly. Gonna have to disagree with sperm/eggs being an early form of life. Also a fetus is what you have once we move past the "tiny cluster of cells" and the organs begin to develop. I doubt EnDeR would agree that abortion should be banned once we move past the tiny cluster of cells stage - so again I would say that the desperate need to frame it this way just shows a lack of confidence in saying that a woman should be allowed to kill a fetus that is living off her body. You can disagree all you like, but sperm and egg cells are living tissue according to any definition you like. So is skin, a recently chopped off toe, and.. mosquitoes, or for that matter, tuberculosis bacteria. I'll add the adjective "human" before life since it seems necessary here. So I'll also say none of those other things are an early form of human life either. define human. Because sperm and eggs are made up of human dna.
|
On August 07 2022 19:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 19:19 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:14 Acrofales wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. I don't think anybody denies it's a living thing. But so are mosquitoes... Your point being...? Seemed self-explanatory. The fact that something is living doesn't give it any particular rights. In fact there's a hell of a lot of life we try very very hard to destroy! I think you're confusing "living" with "personhood". And then I have to disagree that a clump of fetal cells is a person, just as I would disagree if you tried to claim a mosquito was a person.
What makes a person, though? If we go by criteria like mental faculties, then I'm not sure if even a newborn would qualify. There are animals that we don't grant person status to, that we kill routinely, which have higher mental capabilities than newborns.
|
On August 07 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 19:22 Acrofales wrote:On August 07 2022 19:19 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:14 Acrofales wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. I don't think anybody denies it's a living thing. But so are mosquitoes... Your point being...? Seemed self-explanatory. The fact that something is living doesn't give it any particular rights. In fact there's a hell of a lot of life we try very very hard to destroy! I think you're confusing "living" with "personhood". And then I have to disagree that a clump of fetal cells is a person, just as I would disagree if you tried to claim a mosquito was a person. What makes a person, though? If we go by criteria like mental faculties, then I'm not sure if even a newborn would qualify. There are animals that we don't grant person status to, that we kill routinely, which have higher mental capabilities than newborns.
You wouldn't define personhood strictly on mental faculties. Coming up with a definition for personhood that is acceptable universally is difficult, but I'd argue that if it's a human, i.e. it's an independent being that carries human DNA, it's a person. I don't think we need to worry about personhood for AIs just yet.
|
On August 07 2022 20:10 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote:On August 07 2022 19:22 Acrofales wrote:On August 07 2022 19:19 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:14 Acrofales wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. I don't think anybody denies it's a living thing. But so are mosquitoes... Your point being...? Seemed self-explanatory. The fact that something is living doesn't give it any particular rights. In fact there's a hell of a lot of life we try very very hard to destroy! I think you're confusing "living" with "personhood". And then I have to disagree that a clump of fetal cells is a person, just as I would disagree if you tried to claim a mosquito was a person. What makes a person, though? If we go by criteria like mental faculties, then I'm not sure if even a newborn would qualify. There are animals that we don't grant person status to, that we kill routinely, which have higher mental capabilities than newborns. You wouldn't define personhood strictly on mental faculties. Coming up with a definition for personhood that is acceptable universally is difficult, but I'd argue that if it's a human, i.e. it's an independent being that carries human DNA, it's a person. I don't think we need to worry about personhood for AIs just yet.
You're using "human" and "person" synonymously here. It's a bit tautological, don't you think? Also how do you define being independent? Sure, a newborn can survive outside of the womb, but it certainly cannot survive on its own. If you were to leave it to fend for itself, it would die in a matter of days (?).
|
On August 07 2022 20:17 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 20:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 07 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote:On August 07 2022 19:22 Acrofales wrote:On August 07 2022 19:19 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:14 Acrofales wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. I don't think anybody denies it's a living thing. But so are mosquitoes... Your point being...? Seemed self-explanatory. The fact that something is living doesn't give it any particular rights. In fact there's a hell of a lot of life we try very very hard to destroy! I think you're confusing "living" with "personhood". And then I have to disagree that a clump of fetal cells is a person, just as I would disagree if you tried to claim a mosquito was a person. What makes a person, though? If we go by criteria like mental faculties, then I'm not sure if even a newborn would qualify. There are animals that we don't grant person status to, that we kill routinely, which have higher mental capabilities than newborns. You wouldn't define personhood strictly on mental faculties. Coming up with a definition for personhood that is acceptable universally is difficult, but I'd argue that if it's a human, i.e. it's an independent being that carries human DNA, it's a person. I don't think we need to worry about personhood for AIs just yet. You're using "human" and "person" synonymously here. It's a bit tautological, don't you think? Also how do you define being independent? Sure, a newborn can survive outside of the womb, but it certainly cannot survive on its own. If you were to leave it to fend for itself, it would die in a matter of days (?).
I think only humans can be people. Sure. We assign special rights to people and I think only humans should enjoy those rights, at least until we bump into aliens, at that point we can update the definition.
Independent as in not living inside a vagina.
|
On August 07 2022 20:28 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 20:17 maybenexttime wrote:On August 07 2022 20:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 07 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote:On August 07 2022 19:22 Acrofales wrote:On August 07 2022 19:19 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:14 Acrofales wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. I don't think anybody denies it's a living thing. But so are mosquitoes... Your point being...? Seemed self-explanatory. The fact that something is living doesn't give it any particular rights. In fact there's a hell of a lot of life we try very very hard to destroy! I think you're confusing "living" with "personhood". And then I have to disagree that a clump of fetal cells is a person, just as I would disagree if you tried to claim a mosquito was a person. What makes a person, though? If we go by criteria like mental faculties, then I'm not sure if even a newborn would qualify. There are animals that we don't grant person status to, that we kill routinely, which have higher mental capabilities than newborns. You wouldn't define personhood strictly on mental faculties. Coming up with a definition for personhood that is acceptable universally is difficult, but I'd argue that if it's a human, i.e. it's an independent being that carries human DNA, it's a person. I don't think we need to worry about personhood for AIs just yet. You're using "human" and "person" synonymously here. It's a bit tautological, don't you think? Also how do you define being independent? Sure, a newborn can survive outside of the womb, but it certainly cannot survive on its own. If you were to leave it to fend for itself, it would die in a matter of days (?). I think only humans can be people. Sure. We assign special rights to people and I think only humans should enjoy those rights, at least until we bump into aliens, at that point we can update the definition.
What makes the life of a newborn human inherently more valuable than that of, say, a pig?
Independent as in not living inside a vagina.
What's so special about the womb (or vagina, as you put it)? Would an adult human lose the status of a person if he/she were to end up on life support? From a practical perspective it wouldn't be much different from the foetus being hooked up to the mother's body for basic needs. That person would not be any more independent than a foetus.
|
On August 07 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 19:22 Acrofales wrote:On August 07 2022 19:19 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:14 Acrofales wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. I don't think anybody denies it's a living thing. But so are mosquitoes... Your point being...? Seemed self-explanatory. The fact that something is living doesn't give it any particular rights. In fact there's a hell of a lot of life we try very very hard to destroy! I think you're confusing "living" with "personhood". And then I have to disagree that a clump of fetal cells is a person, just as I would disagree if you tried to claim a mosquito was a person. What makes a person, though? If we go by criteria like mental faculties, then I'm not sure if even a newborn would qualify. There are animals that we don't grant person status to, that we kill routinely, which have higher mental capabilities than newborns.
I don't claim to have an answer. I agree most farm animals are more "conscious", "intelligent" or otherwise "mentally capable" than newborn humans. I'd also point out that newborns are not capable of independent life. They are absolutely dependent on their family (or whatever other human takes pity on them) for survival. That said, I am not a proponent of infanticide, and believe the parents are responsible for taking care of the infant, either by taking care of it themselves or by giving it up to a societal safety net that will take care of it.
At what point does abortion become infanticide? Not an easy question to answer. I'd rather focus on the mother. I'd say the mother at no point has the obligation to carry a fetus inside her. I guess the question of consent is an important one here. Not consent regarding the father, but rather consent toward carrying the fetus inside her. Consent must necessarily be continuously reevaluated, and if at any point she feels she is no longer consenting, she should have the right to abort her pregnancy.
So even at 32 weeks she can decide to "abort" her pregnancy. Obviously the procedure of aborting a pregnancy at 32 weeks is very different from doing so at 18 weeks, because at 32 weeks the prospect of the baby surviving outside the womb is excellent. As such, the doctor has an obligation not only toward the mother but also toward the fetus, and the procedure should reduce harm to both. The procedure would be a Cesarian, I presume, and the baby would be whisked off to NICU before a suitable adoption home is found... whereas at 18 weeks there's no possible way the fetus can expect to live, and removing it from the womb is not also committing infanticide, so do that in the least intrusive way possible for the mother. If medical care advances to where 18-week-old fetuses can be kept alive and well outside the womb with a reasonable expectancy that they grow into functional adult humans, then similar care will have to be given to 18-week-old fetuses as should be given to 32-week-old fetuses.
|
When having a discussion about pro-life and pro-choice positions, there seems to be a fine line between important semantics and uncharitable obfuscation. For example, whether or not a pro-life person can clearly convey that sperm on its own (or an egg on its own) is not a human life (whatever "human life" means, it conventionally requires both of those, not just one), I think it's pretty clear when they say they believe that human life starts at conception - having that fertilization process actually occur. And regardless of whether or not they can explain every awkwardly rare hypothetical, I think it's clear that they're at least able to draw a line in most typical cases: the woman has gone from not-pregnant to pregnant, that's the moment where the pro-life individual tends to place consistent value, and we can reasonably assume the human woman is not on track to give birth to a mosquito or some other non-human.
While the intention of locking in to some of that terminology is to make sure that a pro-life person is being perfectly consistent and not ambiguous, I think it also makes good-faith discussions much harder to have when the position is already generally understood. A woman is pregnant with something (fertilized egg, fetus, etc.) that - once born - we typically grant rights to, and the pro-life individual feels that the "something" in its current, pre-birth stage, also deserves (similar? identical?) rights, even before it's born and becomes a baby. I don't think we need to go down the "flawlessly define personhood/human/independence/viability" - which are notoriously squishy terms, even outside of this already-tough conversation about pro-life/choice beliefs - and "what about babies or adults who can't take care of themselves" routes, every time.
|
We can also make the distinction that if they are truly belived that life begins at conception then they would be pro choice and support contraceptives and birth control. If they were truly believing that the fetus has value they would try to protect that life. They don't. They actively pursue policy that increases the rate that the fetus dies and abandons the pretence of them having value the moment the fetus leaves the woman.
I can't believe we still need to entertain the stated reasons for a ideology when they don't remotely follow those reasons in what they advocate for.
|
On August 07 2022 20:40 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2022 20:28 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 07 2022 20:17 maybenexttime wrote:On August 07 2022 20:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 07 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote:On August 07 2022 19:22 Acrofales wrote:On August 07 2022 19:19 BlackJack wrote:On August 07 2022 19:14 Acrofales wrote:On August 07 2022 18:11 BlackJack wrote:
Frankly if you can't acknowledge that a fetus is life in an early form and is something that is living and growing, then I don't think you believe that strongly in your pro-choice position. It doesn't send the message that you believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose what she does with her body that it overrides the fetus's right to life. Instead it sends the message that the only way you can make abortion palatable is to desperately convince yourself that a fetus is no different than an appendix and an abortion is akin to an appendectomy which is kind of ridiculous. I don't think anybody denies it's a living thing. But so are mosquitoes... Your point being...? Seemed self-explanatory. The fact that something is living doesn't give it any particular rights. In fact there's a hell of a lot of life we try very very hard to destroy! I think you're confusing "living" with "personhood". And then I have to disagree that a clump of fetal cells is a person, just as I would disagree if you tried to claim a mosquito was a person. What makes a person, though? If we go by criteria like mental faculties, then I'm not sure if even a newborn would qualify. There are animals that we don't grant person status to, that we kill routinely, which have higher mental capabilities than newborns. You wouldn't define personhood strictly on mental faculties. Coming up with a definition for personhood that is acceptable universally is difficult, but I'd argue that if it's a human, i.e. it's an independent being that carries human DNA, it's a person. I don't think we need to worry about personhood for AIs just yet. You're using "human" and "person" synonymously here. It's a bit tautological, don't you think? Also how do you define being independent? Sure, a newborn can survive outside of the womb, but it certainly cannot survive on its own. If you were to leave it to fend for itself, it would die in a matter of days (?). I think only humans can be people. Sure. We assign special rights to people and I think only humans should enjoy those rights, at least until we bump into aliens, at that point we can update the definition. What makes the life of a newborn human inherently more valuable than that of, say, a pig? What's so special about the womb (or vagina, as you put it)? Would an adult human lose the status of a person if he/she were to end up on life support? From a practical perspective it wouldn't be much different from the foetus being hooked up to the mother's body for basic needs. That person would not be any more independent than a foetus.
A human baby's life is more valuable than a pig's because we care more for our children than we care about the animals we grow for food.
I think it makes sense to wait until someone is born before you award them rights. Not all pregnancies are viable and awarding personhood before they're born just sounds premature to me.
Besides, I would be wary of assigning personhood to something you couldn't tell 100% it's human without a DNA test.
|
On August 07 2022 21:22 Sermokala wrote:
We can also make the distinction that if they are truly belived that life begins at conception then they would be pro choice and support contraceptives and birth control. If they were truly believing that the fetus has value they would try to protect that life. They don't. They actively pursue policy that increases the rate that the fetus dies and abandons the pretence of them having value the moment the fetus leaves the woman.
I can't believe we still need to entertain the stated reasons for a ideology when they don't remotely follow those reasons in what they advocate for.
I'm just as angry as you are about the general inconsistency of the Republican ideology surrounding "caring about babies/children" when they claim to be pro-life but are actually just pro-birth/pro-fetus/anti-choice and don't care about anyone after they've been born. That being said, we want to avoid a whataboutism if we're simply talking to someone about why they're taking the pro-life/anti-abortion stance in regards to pregnancy. There is a difference between the singular belief "human life, and therefore rights, begin at conception" and the assertion "I consistently believe in caring for all individuals and doing what's best for them, whether they're in the womb, or they're babies, or they're children, or they're adults".
|
|
|
|
|
Republicans just can’t stand the insulin cap lol. What a bizarrely transparently corrupt thing to do
|
I wonder how Conservatives are making progress, we were told that they were seriously thinking about how best to support all the people they're forcing to give birth since they overturned Roe. I bet they've got something nice and neat just around the corner, ready to go in every red state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
