politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Question for you. When there are shortages on organ donor lists that will cause people to die, should the government be able to compel heathy individuals to donate organs they don't need? What about for blood shortages?
This isn't a question, it's a setup for a copypasta. You should be ashamed but you won't be.
Its a probing question to find out where the moral line is. It is a ridiculous proposal for sure, but it is basically the same ask as forcing a woman to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.
Not really, it's not a statement geared to generate any meaningful discussion. Just another way to kill nuance and make online forums more hostile.
Thought lemmy was resistant to it but I guess not.
I don't think you actually do want an nuanced discussion, but here you go.
Let's start by acknowledging that everyone has different morals which makes basing rules of law on morals a difficult proposal. But let's say that rules for a fair and just society usually come down to that one's rights ends where someone else's begins. Maybe you disagree with this, but I'd say it is a pretty basic standard to make things fair.
So in the abortion debate, the opinion of whether or not the unborn have any rights in society. Some people will say no, that until you are a living breathing human, you are not a part of society and its rules. To theses people, the abortion debate ends there. The unborn have no rights so abortion is justified.
Some people believe that the unborn have just as many rights as anyone else, so then my proposed scenerio starts to come into play. If we can force women to give up bodily autonomy in favor another life, then why not enact similar rules to save others in society as well.
Now, you might say, "hold on a minute, I think that the unborn actually has more rights because they are among the most vulnerable in society and can't live unless they have some rights over the mother's body." Well, in that case then my scenario does seem pretty silly, and to some extent that makes sense, as there are plenty of laws that center around the welfare of children, but none that force specific people to give up bodily autonomy in the same way that forced pregnancy does. I would also expect people in this camp to support laws to support children in need by providing food, housing, and other support they need. So in my opinion, if you support abortion bans but don't support laws that help take of children in need, then you are a hypocrite, especially since social support comes in the form that doesn't force any individual to not have control over their own body. Now a lot of GOP politicians seem to fall in this category, so my scenario is aimed directly at them.
Okay, so say you support the rights of the unborn as well as favor societal structures to also help children in need. This at least I can understand, but I would still say that abortion bans are misguided because they usually end up disproportionately affecting people without a lot of means in the first place and do nothing to address the reasons that women actually get abortions. I would say that if you can start by addressing those things with things like free and easy access to birth control, financial compensation, and fostering environments that teach consent so woman can feel safe turning down sex that can lead to pregnancy. But to try none of those and jump straight to punishing women seems like supporting cruelty in the face of better options.
I look forward to your nuanced response.
It's not about bodily autonomy and so I reject the premise of your comparison. But to further throw you askew I do support mandatory vaccination. The answer as with so many things is "it depends on the situation".
It's good to have principles but it's also important to live in the real world and understand when there are exceptions because there are exceptions to every rule and only fundamentalists disagree with that.
Only sith deal in absolutes.
But it is about bodily autonomy. You are advocating to force people to use their bodies against their will. And most people who support these policies don't ever have to worry about it happening to them.
You are right that the real world needs exceptions or compromises. I'll just never understand that why we need to compromise on the rights of the "unborn" vs enacting policies that would do a lot of good for those that are living and suffering instead that doesn't force people into losing choices over their own bodies.
I'm insisting that they not murder their unborn child because they failed to use protection or didn't contemplate that sex makes babies. Bodily autonomy has nothing to do with it. You sacrifice your bodily autonomy to an extent when you get pregnant. That ends when the child is born.
So do you support abortion in cases of rape where the woman didn't choose to have sex?
Not that it matters of course. As we see the reality of anti abortion laws generally push for few or no exceptions, so rape victims have to continue enduring trauma for something they have now control in.
If you asked me how to really reduce abortions, then I would suggest comprehensive sex education, along with free and easy access to contraception to everyone, as well fostering environments that respect consent so women can feel safe saying no. Again, after all of that I'd still draw my line that gives women over the rights to their bodies. But to support outlawing abortion before any of those things just seems like supporting cruelty in the face of more effective options.
Yes as I've said many places and I probably should have been more clear in my original comment there should always be exceptions for rape, incest or when the mother's health is in life threatening risk.
I'll even go one further than you did and I would say that we should make contraception free and just pass it out like candy and I don't just mean condoms I mean all types. Not reduced cost. Totally free. I'm pro-life and that would reduce abortions tremendously. Most pro life people are not extremists or anti-contraception.
I'm also happy to pay higher taxes to provide prenatal care and I support Universal health Care in general. Medicare for all.
You didn't "go one further" than me, it sounds like we both are advocating for free and easy access to contraception. Either way I'm glad you support that at least.
You say that most pro life people aren't extremists, but the ones that write the abortion ban laws seem to lean into the extremes, so by supporting them you are supporting those extreme positions. And even when the laws still have exceptions, those with means can go get an abortion elsewhere for whatever reason they want. So the laws primarily effect those who probably didn't have the means to get other types of birth control as well. And in some cases people who actually want to have babies but need to suffer because these laws can prevent care because of government intervention between health care providers and patients.
You say yourself that there are other methods of reducing abortion, so why advocate for the one that seems less effective and promotes cruelty?
I don't and I don't actually normally care all that much about abortion but when I see crazy radical talking points like I have in this thread it makes me more of a pro-life activist. Left or right I have very little patience for nonsense.
One dude implied in regard to pregnancy that a baby is like a parasite and when the mother no longer consented to her body being used by the baby she could just flush it away like a turd. That's sick framing. Treating unborn human beings like they're disposable is sick. And I don't buy the bodily autonomy argument. Many of these same people will advocate for mandatory vaccines but yet will scream pro-choice slogans at rallies. And vaccines are way safer than abortion. Shoot even I support mandatory vaccination.
As political extremism and echo chambers become more common I feel I have a moral and civic duty to pop those bubbles by presenting dissenting viewpoints. I can do that here due to the lack of censorship I've encountered so far whereas I can't do that on Reddit so it becomes more and more unhealthy over there.
My real enemy is echo chambers and political extremism on both sides of the aisle. It's already unrecoverable and nightmarish on the right, I don't want it to get that bad on the left.
Even if it doesn't show in what people type, me presenting arguments against abortion still provides a useful catalyst for critical thinking and discussion. It is definitely a small contribution but it's certainly better than a vacuum of dissenting opinions.
Looks like your real enemy are all these strawmen that you keep building your arguments around.
You dismiss my views on bodily autonomy by saying that we who support that stance also support mandatory vaccines when you are the only one advocating for that here. BTW, I don't support mandatory vaccines, but I do support getting vaccines and think by supporting better education among the general population, vaccine rates would stay in the range for heard immunity to kick in for those that can't or just don't want them for whatever reason.
In my view supporting abortion ban is the extreme position here. One that has caused a lot of very real hurt and pain. Way more pain than someone making comments that unborn babies are parasites. I'm sorry that made you uncomfortable, but swinging your support behind the crowd that has caused women to suffer in response seems like a weird reaction to me.
And when I bring up putting your support behind less extreme policies that would actually do more to address the reasons women seek abortions you go off on me about fighting political extremes? What a fucking laugh.
So if someone is on the pill at gets pregnant it meets your approval for an abortion? If they are using condoms and still get pregnant it meets your approval for an abortion? Rhythm method? Pulling out? Where do you draw the line and why do you get to decide? I don't think many people are using abortion as birth control. It's usually economic pressure, and sometimes health issues. I am a woman who had a bunch of kids and wouldn't abort but outlawing abortion has had no good consequences anywhere, anytime, for anyone. Just make contraception free and safe, that is what actually reduces abortion. Making it illegal just harms women.
I draw the line at rape, incest, or when the mother's health is in life-threatening risk. Statistically these make up less than 15% of all abortions.
That sounds like a rule to me. Which means it has an exception. Which is a contradiction for the rule.
Welcome to the limitations of pure logic friend. There are limits to pure reason as Immanuel Kant observed.
Kant was full of shit. He whole philosophy is defeated the moment a non-human animal cares for its young. His fault for trying to prove Christianity was true.
In any case some of us care about what is true and what is not, which includes using the badic tools of logic. This is why there are no conservative intellectuals, when they lose the game they throw the board.