Not exactly an unbiased or reliable source...
-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Be sure to sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
The Well-Mannered Politics Thread
- Thread starter usmccharles
- Start date
- Status
Not exactly an unbiased or reliable source...
At conception it is neither a child or breathing and it’s hardly human either - if it was it wouldn’t need to gestate inside another human for 9 months - it’s not a viable human being, it’s a clump of cells more akin to a lizard than a human
52520Andrew
Pro Bowler
Source mentions nothing about breathing in general, how exactly does a cluster of cells breathe like you claimed?
Inqui
Pro Bowler
Fwiw anywhere between 40% and 60% of fertilised eggs die in the womb for all kinds of reasons (source: scientific journal - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/). That definition of life means we're looking at the biggest health crisis in human history by quite some distance.
Using some back-of-an-envelope calculations based on 2016 rates (and assuming it's 40%, so the lowest end of that band), 91.6 million babies worldwide died in utero that year, compared with 56.9 million recorded deaths that year. Of those deaths, heart disease was the leading cause of death worldwide. But for every person who died of heart disease, 6.03 people died because something happened with the fertilised egg.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate
I'm not going to get too bogged down in this discussion (more people change their mind because of internet discussions than one might expect, but abortion is not one of those areas), but it's easy to see where the "life begins at conception" argument leads. And that's before you get into things like tax credits, census counts, double homicides and artificial heartbeats. Not to mention that article reading more like a philosophical piece (if life is continuous then why does it start with a fertilised egg and not sperm or egg cells?). If saving a fertilised egg counts as saving a life, how much resources should be put into this health crisis?
Tank
Hall of Famer
52520Andrew
Pro Bowler
Yeah it is pretty messed up
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-a...tion-after-new-ohio-abortion-bill-2019-05-13/
I don’t think the addendum is needed tbh - forcing a woman to have a child under any circumstances is backwards and gross
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
Evangelical scare mongering lmao. Plus I said during delivery not after birth but yes Va talked about it. Here listen to Gov Blackface. You know the gov with the Lt gov that's accused of raping 2 women but media don't seem to care.
You know when you used to talk about a womans health you was talking about her life being threatened. Not the case no more apparently. Lets see now health can be considered not only physically but omg emotionally. So basically to cut a long story short there could be ANY reason to abort a baby according to the law. Just like I said. She's gonna be psychologically damaged from having a baby. Chrissakes Rossi!!
In fact I guess NY is planning a lot of abortions. A midwife can now do it as long as he/she is liscensed. Doctors need breaks from that 24 hr shift. Did you know 1 in 3 babies in NYC get aborted? Cant tell me that's good!! This was supposed to be rare. Problem is nowadays there is no damn responsibilities. Taxpayers/federal funds can just take care of peoples mistakes.
If people are pissed about Ala but not NY then that's an eyeopener to me. They're both at the far extremes. In fact it was quoted by somebody that women get in trouble in Ala. That's 100% false and fake news. Only the provider gets locked up!!
ive always said abortion is womans health issue in the sense that its down to women to make that decision - when ive specified life-threatening circumstances that was when testing your stance on the issue...
for the avoidance of doubt ill be clear - i support any laws and protections that make abortions accessible to women of all situations
and to clear another thing up - anti-abortion laws dont stop abortions, they just lock up doctors and force women to have more painful/more life-threatening procedures
and psychological damage and emotional readiness are quite clearly a major player in abortions beyond physical issues
and i want to ask you a question... with all these supposed extra unborn lives coming to fruition, what are you gonna do with them once they're born - especially when the mother/parents cant provide for them (which is a common reason for abortion)?
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
Maybe they should quit teaching gender fluidity and actually teach kids what could possibly happen when you doing the koochykoo.
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
You should ask an adopted kid that question. A lot of women also regret having that abortion. That can be psychologically damaging too. This gets me back to you reap what you sow.
Again I'll also be clear. This should be a states decision. Federal funds don't work for me. Right now I believe you should own up and pay for your mistakes.
ok so what if you cant actually afford to support that "mistake" what then? because there's thousands of kids solely in alabama who havent been adopted so there's clearly a "surplus" of supply vs demand already if you want to really get down to it on a purely numbers basis
so what happens to all these extra tiny humans who arent self-sufficient and cant or wont be provided for...
flynismo
Practice Squad
"living and breathing" is a figure of speech.
flynismo
Practice Squad
I don't think anyone on either side approves of that. Maybe some far right religious extremists; that's about it.
clearly there are people who believe that and it doesnt matter if they're on the fringes of society if they also happen to be legislators (e.g. in alabama where the oxymoron "consensual rape" was used this week to justify no exceptions for incest and rape in their anti-abortion law)
flynismo
Practice Squad
Your opinion of what is viable is just that, an opinion. I know you claim that somehow my source wasn't impartial, but there is plenty of other scientific resources out there all saying the same thing. Life begins at conception.
I'd like to know why the pro-lifers (EDIT: pro-choice, not pro-life) completely disregard things like birth control or attempt to deny the father's rights.
My questions:
1. Why do they not push harder (no pun intended
) for slapping on a rubber before having sex? In other words, isn't preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place a win - win for everyone involved?2. Why do they think that the father has no rights just because the woman carries the child? Is it "her" child, or is it "their" child?
Now, I think I know the answer to #2. If they deny science and claim that a fetus is not a human and/or "viable", then they can in good conscience make a pregnancy seem no different than a UTI or something. Just some medical issue that a woman has to deal with, nobody's business but hers.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
But I do not understand why they don't seem to care about preventing it in the first place; unless funding to Planned Parenthood is threatened, then their main objection to that is access to free or low cost birth control is taken from them. And that's what bugs me. I don't like Uncle Sam trying to dictate what we are doing in our bedrooms, but I do think that it is important to have programs that provide education and birth control at no or low costs to people who need it (typically teenagers / college students).
Last edited:
flynismo
Practice Squad
This is true. And the state of Alabama is shameful.
flynismo
Practice Squad
I like your counterpoints that you bring up. Get bogged down into this if you have time for it, because abortion is a topic that I flipped on several times before finally settling on a stance. Iff nothing else, it is giving food for thought to people who haven't yet formed a firm opinion yet.
My questions:
1. Why do they not push harder (no pun intended
i agree with you - if you want to reduce abortions, the real answer is to improve and expand sexual education and to make contraception and birth control more accessible and less stigmatised - naturally a more intelligent society will abort less but that's not the interest of the anti-abortion movement
i think the answer there is that the heart of the "pro-life" movement is not actually being pro-life, it's being pro-control over women and mothers (it's pretty obvious that it comes from a view of traditional christian nuclear families being idealised given all the anti-abortion thinking in the bible belt and from evangelicals in particular)
this from an alabama pastor:
pro-lifers have a very narrow focus - the movement has no problem with capital punishment, and reduced government control as regarding welfare, health care, climate change, prison reform, child-care, access to education etc. the pro-life movement doesnt care about life they care about advocating for a very particular group who can say nothing either way
especially with regards to abortion - if you want to acceptably make abortion mandatory then you have to make pre-natal care free, you have to make childcare free, you revamp education, you redo the child support system, you improve and expand adoption networks, you create more affordable housing etc. etc. etc.
- Status