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
If you believe a fetus is a human being I don’t see how you could be pro choice, that’s how I understood your comment at least. Being pro choice is predicated on the idea that a fetus isn’t a human yet. I don’t know any people that can argue that a fetus is a human child at conception and also be pro choice.
Honestly we need to change the way we fight against abortion. The Republicans have successfully made the issue a “murder” issue when it’s really an issue of keeping government out of medical decisions as well as severe lack of education about sex. No women want an abortion , they just don’t want to be pregnant. If we fought to drive education about contraceptives and risks of unprotected sex abortion numbers would plummet.
So the article or at least the title is stating that she's raising her rapists baby. I understood the title to be derogatory towards the child like it's some kind of burden to raise your child. Which in many senses it can be. But it's not the child's fault, especially since it's already born that it was conceived during a rape. That child shouldn't be held responsible for that event. That's what I meant.
I'm certainly not advocating against abortion, nor am I stating that a fetus is a human.
Granted it has the potential for life or to become a human being at some point. But other than that I don't see how you could have taken my statement to mean what you said it does.
I've heard arguments that abortion is justified even with fetus personhood because nobody has a moral obligation to serve as a host for anyone else without informed consent. You have the right to do anything whatsoever with your own body, regardless of how much someone else needs it.
We’ll that’s an argument I guess however consent is not the end all be all of free will. You can not give a fetus personhood and be pro choice because at that point you accept that abortion is murder, taking the life of another human. Your right to choose does not supersede another persons right to live.
Not to mention they consented by having unprotected sex (barring instances of rape of course)
(Disclaimer: this is an academic exercise to me because I don't believe fetuses are people)
It boils down to consent. If you didn't consent, then it's not murder to remove a parasite. My right to swing my fist ends at your face.
Even outside of rape, the claim that consenting to having sex is consenting to have a baby is a stretch.
they were able to reframe the 'signs of life' as 'when a heartbeat is detected' - yet it's not a heartbeat. it's not a fucking heart yet. And this isn't controversial interpretation, it's literal biological development. How can a 'heart' beat without VALVES? the entire concept is flawed.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/02/1033727679/fetal-heartbeat-isnt-a-medical-term-but-its-still-used-in-laws-on-abortion
We're talking about blastocysts growing into embryos. There aren't organs. There's a bit of goop that's trying to differentiate into many parts, it looks far more like something you'd sneeze out than a wee baby.
i mean this isn’t really my stance but i’d be willing to play devil’s advocate: a human fetus is a child at conception, i just believe in a utilitarian way that allowing for abortion is more optimal for society than not; in the same way we are all okay with regularly performing castration on pets and animals, a practice typically viewed as horrible and gauche but that we accept for a utilitarian reason (i.e, we have all decided that getting your cat/dog “fixed” is acceptable because it makes the pet significantly easier to deal with behaviorally.) this is still castration tho, they suffer many of the same health problems that human beings do when getting prematurely castrated. remember when the whole internet was outraged over castratos from the 1800s and how terrible a practice it was? we allow that to happen daily to millions of pets, and no one bats an eye. why? because we decided it was simply better, more utilitarian. the same applies to being pro choice in this way, if that was your belief system. you can acknowledge that there do exist similarities between murder and abortion, it is intrinsic to the act. you can also hone your rhetoric beyond stupid regurgitation and realize there are more concise and precise reasons to think the “correct” things, and that in spite of you not walking the world this way yourself these rhetorical paths are still incredibly important for the means of outreach. you suffer from a metaphorical head up the ass, friend, at least that’s what it seems. people are so quick to dismiss and judge anything they’re not immediately aligned with now… the divisive nature of the commons will be the death of us
this is flawed from the start. how can something be a fetus at conception when doctors don't use that term until 8 weeks at the earliest?
re: pets & neutering - this logic will get you nowhere with theists because of the humanity exception - the animals were put here to serve us (according to them), we're above the system, not part of it. Hence man being created in god's image yadda yadda...
frankly the amount of downvotes i’m getting combined with the way you immediately begin arguing against me? missing the point.
after your first rebuttal: can you come up with a way to justify this that doesnt have to do with what doctors are already deciding? i know i might seem like an asshole right now, but i genuinely want to find rhetoric here that works in justifying this point to all people, the place it would be most useful in, not just circlejerking the people who already think this. we can circlejerk all day. doesn’t accomplish anything. you completely are missing the point that arguing against the made point is futile because no true advocates of that point are actually here. does nothing interest you in why the midwest seems to hold that sentiment so dear? or are they just racist yokels to you? are you so blindingly upset by the idea of what they think that you can do nothing but tirade in response to it? jesus fucking christ there will be one singular issue in my life i “both sides” it for, and it’s this. zero fucking empathy from anyone these days.
second: that’s a valid point, this crowd would likely respond in turn with that exact argument. i guess my response in turn would be i know their argument is invalid, and you in turn giving me the proper rebuttal accomplishes nothing. it would be more conducive to explore why these people respond this way. is it not interesting to you why these people draw an equivalence between “animals” and “man” in the way they do? or are we just going to bookmark them as stupid and forget about it? jesus fucking christ.
the response here is my exact problem with rhetoric in the spaces i occupy. i don’t want to be binned in with the same right wing dumbasses i detest, obviously, but blindly lashing out against anything that looks like the enemy? despicable. there’s no thought or reason to it