this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
165 points (74.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43892 readers
1084 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The fact you view politics as a zero sum sports game is the problem in pro or anti, us vs them. You're mistaken I'm against the practice I just go about it a different way.
You can be against abortion and still be pro-choice. No one is pro-abortion. You want to go about it in a way that changes the circumstances in people's lives so they choose not to have an abortion. So you do think the person's choice matters. And you can see circumstances for why someone would choose to abort. But note how you don't want to take actually away their choice, just change the circumstances so they don't make that choice. That's because...
You're pro-choice.
No I'm against the practice and I don't believe in the ideology of liberalism I am not pro-choice choice is an illusion presented from the environment.
You don't want to institute a ban, but would rather influence people's choices. That's pro-choice, dumbass. Anyways you cut it, that's pro-choice.
Influence no, a material solution with a planned economy to serve everyone's needs in society so everyone has necessities and luxuries to afford and have a happy and healthy life. My solution goes beyond your simple petty plaster over a gaping wound.
Please keep going with that train of thought
What is your intended outcome of them having a happy and healthy life? Is it so they... choose... not to have abortions?
The intended outcome is to develop the economy, develop the productive forces to provide for everyone in a planned economy. And hopefully bring the death rate down caused by capitalism.
Serious question: do you want to ban abortion before you have developed your country's economy to "provide for everyone", or after?
N.B: 45% of the abortions in the world are unsafe. It is a leading cause of maternal mortality and millions of women are hospitalized each year due to complications of unsafe abortions.
I want to provide material abundance so women don't feel the need to have to have them.
@foresight what if my partner and I just don't want kids? Even if we're economically secure? Are we not allowed to fuck because it offends your sensibilities? Because, uh, no. Don't like abortion? Don't have an abortion. I'm all for reducing the number by economic and social improvements, but there are cases where a woman does not for whatever reason want to grow another human inside of her body and that's her right.
That they majority doesn't need one because people in a planned economy wouldn't have to the stress of affording a mortgage as housing would be allocated, wouldn't have to worry about work because jobs would be allocated, wouldn't have to worry about utility bills because resources would be allocated for need with the change of the economic calculation and wouldn't worry about inflation causing food prices to fluctuate. Come on it's not that hard to determine the factors.