Go Back   Fratching! > General > Social Woes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #11  
Old 06-06-2019, 08:02 AM
Canarr Canarr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 928
Default

I get your distinction between the different "Pro-Life" people you describe. Myself, I would say I'm Pro-Choice, but I wouldn't support abortion of a viable fetus (around the sixth month) for non-medical reasons. Before that, do as you want. But once it becomes necessary for doctors to actively kill the fetus in the mom's body before abortion, I feel a line has been crossed.

That position has gotten me labelled as being against human rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackfaire View Post
Some women their motivation is they feel their protecting unborn babies. Others that they're pushing their morals on others. Some I'm sure even think it's just a matter of "we need to listen to the menfolk"

But there's no doubt in my mind the men pushing the law are all about control.
Why? Seriously, why? If you consider the average age of US lawmakers, most of the men and women involved in passing these laws probably already have all the children they want, so it's not a personal issue.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the motives for women are protection, or moral convictions, or even a desire to go along with what "their men" deem right, but for men, the motives must be wanting to control women?
__________________
"You are who you are on your worst day, Durkon. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain." - Evil
"You're trying to be Lawful Good. People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then." - Good
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 06-07-2019, 07:21 PM
jackfaire's Avatar
jackfaire jackfaire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 3,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canarr View Post
but for men, the motives must be wanting to control women?
For men I don't. I don't generalize. For those very specific men in Alabama who flatly refused to allow for any consideration for the health and well being of the very women they were passing a law on I would say it's fair that their health, well being, and morality plays no factor in their decisions.

My point that apparently I made poorly was that people will have a large variety of reasons and that men and women will have the same reasons regardless of gender. But those very specific men care so little for the women they're passing a law on that Pat Robertson called them out on it.

When other men who also believe abortion should be illegal start saying you're going too far that's a huge indicator that you're going to far. I won't even speak to every single man in Alabama but every Male congressperson that passed that law give every indication of caring nothing for women as independent autonomous people.
__________________
Jack Faire
Friend
Father
Smartass
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 06-25-2019, 12:48 AM
D_Yeti_Esquire's Avatar
D_Yeti_Esquire D_Yeti_Esquire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 598
Default

Quote:
but for men, the motives must be wanting to control women?
Eh, I was away for a while. What can I say?

So anyway, on this point - I think it's helpful to point out my personal belief is that human beings are not logical and respond to subconcious bias's and impulses. It's not a knock on people.

It's why I think it's actually more normal to see women who speak about bodily autonomy and free choice and absolutely balk at the idea of prostitution or divorce of parental responsibility (in the event the mother keeps a child against a father's wishes). Even when the same women may have extremely good points how women disproportionately pay the costs of responsibility for sex but at the same time do not view any sort of moral hazard in the man being on the hook based on a potential one-night stand's whims. Obviously when it comes to men, it's a different set of contradictions - often steadfast belief in the rights of the accused up until the accused doesn't look like them.

I don't find it helpful to tease out the logic in groups; with an individual, sure I can do that. But when it comes to men on the abortion issue, there just ISN'T a logical base. It's not a scientific one objectively for at least a month and a half. Viability and cognitive function simply don't exist at human levels. The religious one comes into being approximately in the 1970's. It was a Catholic issue before that and most Catholics are actually pro choice and came from a time when Catholics really weren't very particularly pro-science (1869). But if there was a change in "dogma", the question immediately becomes "what is that change appealing to?" In Catholocism as well as large segments of Southern Baptist Ministries who is voting? Men.

Well - at the time, segregation was starting to die off as an issue in the US. The nuclear family was coming under assault. In short, as one flashpoint disappeared, threat to men's control of the home was under assault. That religiously based "primacy" of the man was being questioned. So while yes, "control of women's bodies" is a leap, from a historical standpoint it's not much of one. That's the political reality of the US and largely why the US seems FAR more conservative on this issue than similarly religious people in Europe.

Frequently when asked other questions like the gender roles between men and women, both men and women who tend to be pro-life will also tend to hold very traditional views. It's not everybody. These are the same people that asked the same questions over time have become MORE sexist in the last 8 years.

So again, it's not a 1:1 thing so much as its the lack of a logical base combined with the reality of what demographics answer this way. Because any person who has extaordinarily strong beliefs on the issue I'd simply ask four questions: 1 - If you take it as a fact that many women pass fertilized embryos without pregnancy, do those embreyo's not have souls compared to the ones that luck out and hit the wall? 2- If they do and religion was so sure about this, why did this only become a thing in the last 2 centuries when nothing scientifically was supporting it and we discovered these failed "births" happen regularly? 3 - Given religion's wishy-washy perspective on the issue, lack of scientific evidence, and a limited amount of time in your day - why is this the hill to die on when other things like infant mortality, homelessness (related), and addiction rampage through our society at a much higher impact and can be addressed without any question of violating personal rights?

Last edited by D_Yeti_Esquire; 06-25-2019 at 01:02 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 06-25-2019, 06:54 AM
Canarr Canarr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 928
Default

Good summary there. Can't say I disagree with a lot of that - certainly, there is an issue of hypocrisy in fighting tooth and nail for the ban of abortion, but on the other hand allowing children to be caged in detention centers or homeless on the streets. For men and women both, I would like to mention.

Me, I'm not particularly religious, and I do consider myself Pro Choice - up to a point, and that point is viability of the fetus. Once that threshold is passed (somewhere around weeks 22-25, I think), performing an abortion requires the attending physician to terminate the fetus before terminating the pregnancy. Meaning, to actively kill a child, and that's where I draw the line. After that point, abortion should only be permissible in cases of medical necessity, not for any other reason.
__________________
"You are who you are on your worst day, Durkon. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain." - Evil
"You're trying to be Lawful Good. People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then." - Good
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 06-25-2019, 01:36 PM
HEMI6point1 HEMI6point1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canarr View Post
Me, I'm not particularly religious, and I do consider myself Pro Choice - up to a point, and that point is viability of the fetus. Once that threshold is passed (somewhere around weeks 22-25, I think), performing an abortion requires the attending physician to terminate the fetus before terminating the pregnancy. Meaning, to actively kill a child, and that's where I draw the line. After that point, abortion should only be permissible in cases of medical necessity, not for any other reason.
Well "late term" abortions are extremely rare to begin with.

This raises a rather.... interesting? question. A friend of mine just had a baby. They asked about genetic testing and to their surprise it wasn't free, it was something like 2 grand and not covered by insurance so they couldn't afford it. Thankfully their baby was healthy.

I asked him why it was that expensive and not covered by insurance and he stated he was curious on that so he researched it and found the religious zealots have lobbied to make it such because they fear if everyone had access to it there would be more fetuses found with problems thus.... more abortions.

That is the question of "medical necessity." Is it really just to save the life of the mother, or when the fetus tests positive for something that will saddle it with a poor quality of life with no chance of elevating out of it?
__________________
AKA sld72382 on customerssuck.
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 06-26-2019, 12:42 AM
D_Yeti_Esquire's Avatar
D_Yeti_Esquire D_Yeti_Esquire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 598
Default

Yea where abortion intersects with eugenics is where I'll be honest that I don't think I have a good opinion. A bunch of people who are pro life are social darwinist as hell. The whole topic makes me uneasy. Because even if I say "there is no moral problem", that still leaves me with does mankind have the knowledge/wisdom to make those calls and if so what lines are we drawing and who is drawing them?

I think your genetic screening question is pretty valid. In my heart of hearts, I think once you're born you're here. But if you're not viable yet, it seems far more humane for these kids to never experience the pain they're about to get and I don't have a huge problem with genetic screening for known "life altering" diseases such as Downs, Hunington's, etc. To my mind it shouldn't be expensive, it should be free. It is not in the state, nor family, nor communities interests to have people never capable of production. So the knowledge should be free- the choice should be up to the mother/family. And it would be better if we could actually create gene therapies that could fix this stuff in utero, but if people can't get past the abortion squick factor, I doubt we could ever get there.

Note - my notice of "capable of production" is not an ablist thing. For me it's the knowledge that people who cannot have to muddle through life on what society will give them and honestly, historically it's both terrible and far too easy to screw them over.

Last edited by D_Yeti_Esquire; 06-26-2019 at 12:44 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 06-26-2019, 03:26 AM
HEMI6point1 HEMI6point1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Yeti_Esquire View Post
I think your genetic screening question is pretty valid. In my heart of hearts, I think once you're born you're here. But if you're not viable yet, it seems far more humane for these kids to never experience the pain they're about to get and I don't have a huge problem with genetic screening for known "life altering" diseases such as Downs, Hunington's, etc. To my mind it shouldn't be expensive, it should be free. It is not in the state, nor family, nor communities interests to have people never capable of production. So the knowledge should be free- the choice should be up to the mother/family. And it would be better if we could actually create gene therapies that could fix this stuff in utero, but if people can't get past the abortion squick factor, I doubt we could ever get there.
I'm in total agreement with you on that. Regarding downs, there is a lot of effort being made to criminalize abortion if it's listed as a reason. I say the people authoring those bills have made no effort into researching the condition and what it entails.

It's a spectrum. Downs kids are cute and cuddly when they are 1.... not so cute and cuddly when they reach their teenage years and the full extent of their downs is revealed. The ones that are trotted out on conservative news sources that are advocating for the abortion bans are always the ones on the "high functioning" end.

As someone mentioned on Reddit on this very topic, you might wind up with a (relatively) high functioning, happy kid that knows his/her way around their limitations or a nightmare that can't feed or dress themselves and flies into uncontrollable rages at the drop of a hat. Why take the chance?
__________________
AKA sld72382 on customerssuck.
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 06-26-2019, 06:35 AM
Canarr Canarr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HEMI6point1 View Post
Well "late term" abortions are extremely rare to begin with.
I know. So it shouldn't really be a big issue to exclude them, should it? Again, barring medical necessity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HEMI6point1 View Post
That is the question of "medical necessity." Is it really just to save the life of the mother, or when the fetus tests positive for something that will saddle it with a poor quality of life with no chance of elevating out of it?
That... is a slippery slope if I've ever heard of one. I'm German - not sure if that has anything to do with it, but any suggestion of eugenics makes me wary.

While the principle of, "Why let the kid be born if he's only going to suffer in life?" certainly makes sense in principle, where do you draw the line? The more medical science progresses, the more they'll be able to determine during a pre-natal screening.

Your child will be born with a congenital heart failure and die before their tenth birthday.
Your child will be a born with a mental defect and never be able to dress himself, much less function in society.
Your child will be born with Down syndrome.
Your child will be born with Asperger's / be on the Autism spectrum.
Your child's IQ will be below 100.
Your boy won't grow taller than five feet.
Your child will not be conventionally attractive.

If you haven't seen it, I recommend the movie Gattaca. It shows a society where medical science basically allows you to pre-determine your kid's abilities by mixing the best hereditary traits of both parents. If you can afford it. If you can't, your children will be born naturally - and end up as second-class citizens, because obviously, they can't be as good as the genetically improved people.
__________________
"You are who you are on your worst day, Durkon. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain." - Evil
"You're trying to be Lawful Good. People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then." - Good
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 06-26-2019, 01:38 PM
HEMI6point1 HEMI6point1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 282
Default

Quote:
Your child will be born with Asperger's / be on the Autism spectrum.
It makes me wonder with all the advancements in medical science why prenatal screening for autism hasn't been invented yet.

In fact, one of my pro-life friends asked me, "If you feel that way about downs what if they had testing for autism, would you abort then if it comes back positive?"

In order to make such a test useful it would have to detect the severity of the autism, not just "yes" or "no." If it was a "high functioning" spectrum like Asberger's then no I wouldn't, but if it was a severe one then most likely yes.

In fact, I think that the medical field might have already invented it but are afraid to come forward with it because the pro-life people would lobby hard to get it either outlawed or made incredibly expensive as they know what would happen if it was cheap or free.
__________________
AKA sld72382 on customerssuck.
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 06-27-2019, 06:44 AM
Canarr Canarr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 928
Default

I have no idea what is or isn't possible with regards to pre-natal screening, I must admit.

My problem with this kind of option is the same as in my last post: slippery slope. Once you could determine the child's position on the Autism spectrum, where would you draw the line? Where does "high-functioning" end and "low-functioning" begin? Or would you allow people to decide for themselves? No pressure there, I suppose.
__________________
"You are who you are on your worst day, Durkon. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain." - Evil
"You're trying to be Lawful Good. People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then." - Good
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:59 PM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.