Political Discussion: My Thoughts on being Pro-Life

**DarkestDarkness** · 07-19-2022 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Summerlander

(...) a phony kind of sanctimony. (...) Sorry but your argument couldn't be more obnoxious! (...) My analogy, which you were too obtuse to grasp,

Might I just point out to you and as a reminder to others, that should you wish to influence or simply discuss someone else's viewpoints, this type of commentary only serves to inflame discussion and does little for the purposes of actually discussing something.

It's enough to state that you have different beliefs and positions, it's not required that you mock someone else for their viewpoint. There's plenty I don't agree with in the world, being rude to someone about it wouldn't make any difference.

So please refrain from using pejorative or negative adjectives or statements when addressing someone else.

From the DV rules:

3. Be respectful and tolerant of other users. (...) If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all!

**Lang** · 07-19-2022 06:09 PM

Summerlander,

Your post was deleted. Very uncalled for!! Personal attacks will Simply not be tolerated here on this forum. On either side. It never was.
----------
Guys,
Do yourself a favor and STAY OUT of threads where you know you will not be able to control yourself: for example, if you believe very strongly in God, then for crying out loud stay out of a thread that says "Atheists only." Also, creators of threads should be able to limit a discussion to a particular audience (which should be stated in the title); respect that.

Please re-read the rules.: https://www.dreamviews.com/rules-reg...rum-rules.html

If you decide you must comment and argue about the forums rules on this post or anywhere else, do it in Talk to Staff, not here. Although I would prefer you didn't respond.

~Lang.
DV Mod.

**Occipitalred** · 07-21-2022 04:38 AM

I do not have the energy to read this conversation although it is an important one and I see Summerlander got banned (I don't know why), I guess for being impolite in a discussion justifying choices to go back on women's reproductive rights... Politeness may be important, but women's reproductive rights come first. It's kind of weird how we need to play as if going back on women's reproductive rights is just a case of different opinions and civil discussion with much respect.

Philosophizing and debating is fun. But it's real people's rights on the line: it's not a game.

I only urge anyone confused about this subject to do your research and find out why women's reproductive rights, access to abortion, sex education, etc... are important. The information is out there. Debating here is just a game, we're no experts. And Hilary, do check the credibility of your sources! Even a primary source is full of flaws, weaknesses and prone to criticism. Even the best studies! Do ask yourself, what are the biases and weaknesses of this study. You must look into the other sources. Why are they coming up with different results?

This here doesn't matter but I remember finding a book about abortion in first year University. Wanting to go into med school at the time and having the Buddhist no-harm philosophy, I felt unease reading how the author, a medical doctor defended and performed abortions but I read on. My opinion didn't change then. Anyway, good luck to us all.

**Hilary** · 07-21-2022 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

I do not have the energy to read this conversation although it is an important one and I see Summerlander got banned (I don't know why), I guess for being impolite in a discussion justifying choices to go back on women's reproductive rights... Politeness may be important, but women's reproductive rights come first. It's kind of weird how we need to play as if going back on women's reproductive rights is just a case of different opinions and civil discussion with much respect.

Hi Occipitalred.

If you have a problem with the way the forum is moderated, or with the rules, the correct place to post about that is in the Talk to Staff section of the forum. Link to that section of the forum: Link

Please do not use public forums for concerns about moderation actions.

-------------

OK back to the main discussion:

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

Philosophizing and debating is fun. But it's real people's rights on the line: it's not a game.

I agree that it is real people's rights on the line as well. But, I'm considering the rights and lives of both mothers and preborn babies in the equation. Not just mothers.

One of my biggest problems with Roe v. Wade is that while it guaranteed a woman a right to an abortion up to 6 months pregnant in all states (after viability, after ability to feel pain), there's absolutely nothing to prevent abortion after 6 months. No rights at all to the preborn child at any time. Which is why in 7 states (and D.C.) abortion has been legal up until birth, and still is.

How it that fair? When will we see a point at which preborn babies get any rights at all? At least with this being a state issue, now states can amend their constitution (and some have) to include preborn rights.

And doesn't the right to life come before liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

I only urge anyone confused about this subject to do your research and find out why women's reproductive rights, access to abortion, sex education, etc... are important. The information is out there. Debating here is just a game, we're no experts. And Hilary, do check the credibility of your sources! Even a primary source is full of flaws, weaknesses and prone to criticism. Even the best studies! Do ask yourself, what are the biases and weaknesses of this study. You must look into the other sources. Why are they coming up with different results?

This here doesn't matter but I remember finding a book about abortion in first year University. Wanting to go into med school at the time and having the Buddhist no-harm philosophy, I felt unease reading how the author, a medical doctor defended and performed abortions but I read on. My opinion didn't change then. Anyway, good luck to us all.

Research is great. And I would argue that bias can go both ways.

One thing to consider is that sometimes people will attempt to change or argue science to fit an idea that they have. When people argue that they can't determine when human life begins, because they are pro-choice, that says to me that they don't want to acknowledge when human life begins because it doesn't fit their predetermined preferred outcome. Still, this is not the majority of biologists.

And, it's OK to question. Science is never "done". And I welcome that questioning, even if I suspect bias as motivation.

"Steve Jacobs began the study as a part of his dissertation for his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago’s department of Comparative Human Development. In a recent article he published in Quillette, Jacobs revealed his findings. He also relayed the backlash he’s received from pro-abortion advocates after publishing his study.

In his study he, “emailed surveys to professors in the biology departments of over 1,000 institutions around the world.” The results determined that the vast majority of biologists believe that life begins at conception. Jacobs writes, “I found that 5,337 biologists (96%) affirmed that a human’s life begins at fertilization, with 240 (4%) rejecting that view.” Source

**andreasdevig** · 07-21-2022 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

I do not have the energy to read this conversation although it is an important one and I see Summerlander got banned (I don't know why), I guess for being impolite in a discussion justifying choices to go back on women's reproductive rights... Politeness may be important, but women's reproductive rights come first. It's kind of weird how we need to play as if going back on women's reproductive rights is just a case of different opinions and civil discussion with much respect.

Philosophizing and debating is fun. But it's real people's rights on the line: it's not a game.

I only urge anyone confused about this subject to do your research and find out why women's reproductive rights, access to abortion, sex education, etc... are important. The information is out there. Debating here is just a game, we're no experts. And Hilary, do check the credibility of your sources! Even a primary source is full of flaws, weaknesses and prone to criticism. Even the best studies! Do ask yourself, what are the biases and weaknesses of this study. You must look into the other sources. Why are they coming up with different results?

This here doesn't matter but I remember finding a book about abortion in first year University. Wanting to go into med school at the time and having the Buddhist no-harm philosophy, I felt unease reading how the author, a medical doctor defended and performed abortions but I read on. My opinion didn't change then. Anyway, good luck to us all.

I agree. It seems like the administration goes too far sometimes. SummerLander could have definitely phrased things in a more diplomatic way. But there was also a post where he just said “You can delete me from the forum now,” or something like that. So I really don't know why that was deleted.

And also things like deleting a link to another dream forum because they want to keep the traffic directed at Dreamviews. Seems a little extreme to me.

Also, his point about how there was only one woman among the people who decided to overturn Roe V Wade.. is a great point I think. It feels totally wrong that men should get to decide this stuff. And now, countless women will suffer the consequence.

Joe Biden says a lot of crazy ****. But I like what he said about how it should be a decision that's between the doctor and the patient. If anybody should decide, I think it's them. I don't think it makes sense to have politicians decide. Especially politicians who take their decisions from their bible or their sexist views.

When we debate about things like “when does life begin?”, we're getting into very tricky territory. I think it's very tricky to say when life begins. What we do know, though, is all the negative consequences that come from banning abortion. That doesn't seem to be quite so a tricky territory. So maybe we should focus on that first and f.

**Hilary** · 07-21-2022 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by andreasdevig

I agree. It seems like the administration goes too far sometimes. SummerLander could have definitely phrased things in a more diplomatic way. But there was also a post where he just said “You can delete me from the forum now,” or something like that. So I really don't know why that was deleted.

And also things like deleting a link to another dream forum because they want to keep the traffic directed at Dreamviews. Seems a little extreme to me.

Hi andreasdevig. If you have a problem with the way the forum is moderated, the correct place to post about that is in the Talk to Staff section of the forum. Link to that section of the forum: Link

Please do not use public forums for concerns about moderation actions.

-----------------------

Back on topic.

Originally Posted by andreasdevig

Just for the record,

Also, his point about how there was only one woman among the people who decided to overturn Roe V Wade.. is a great point I think. It feels totally wrong that men should get to decide this stuff. And now, countless women will suffer the consequence.

Joe Biden says a lot of crazy ****. But I like what he said about how it should be a decision that's between the doctor and the patient. If anybody should decide, I think it's them. I don't think it makes sense to have politicians decide. Especially politicians who take their decisions from their bible or their sexist views.

When we debate about things like “when does life begin?”, we're getting into very tricky territory. I think it's very tricky to say when life begins. What we do know, though, is all the negative consequences that come from banning abortion. That doesn't seem to be quite so a tricky territory. So maybe we should focus on that first and f.

Yes, there was only one woman who voted in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. BUT, there were NO women on the 1973 Supreme Court that ruled on Roe v. Wade. Just for the record.

If a mother wishes to kill a newborn baby, should that be a decision between a mother and a pediatrician? I argue that it's never OK, and never up to a single person to decide the life or death of another.

Science is less tricky than you think. As I quoted above, 96% of biologists agree when human life starts, at conception. Why is not tricky? I argue this:

A. We know an embryo and a fetus are alive. They meet the criterion for life.

B. We know an embryo and a fetus are not a "part" of the mother, but rather, they have their own distinct DNA, and their own body.

C. We know that offspring cannot be of any other species than that of which their parents belong.

We can focus on consequences of banning abortion, but I argue - we can also focus on the consequences of abortion to the preborn children. Too often, their consequences [death, dismemberment, induced heart attack] are completely ignored.

**Occipitalred** · 07-22-2022 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by Hilary

A. We know an embryo and a fetus are alive. They meet the criterion for life.

B. We know an embryo and a fetus are not a "part" of the mother, but rather, they have their own distinct DNA, and their own body.

C. We know that offspring cannot be of any other species than that of which their parents belong.

Keep thinking about that.

**Hilary** · 07-22-2022 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

Keep thinking about that.

Are you suggesting an embryo is not living? I would like to know your thinking as to why you consider an embryo not alive.

Do you think a fetus is alive?

**tropicalbreeze** · 07-22-2022 10:16 AM

I'm pro-choice in the matter.

**Occipitalred** · 07-22-2022 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Hilary

Are you suggesting an embryo is not living? I would like to know your thinking as to why you consider an embryo not alive.

Do you think a fetus is alive?

I'm not suggesting that. But I would keep thinking about what it means for it to be alive

Spoiler for Think a bit first before the hint 1:

Spoiler for Think a bit more first before the hint 2:

Spoiler for If you want to convince me::

**Hilary** · 07-22-2022 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

I guess now you will bring up that it's human while bacteria isn't. Again. What does it mean for it to be the human species? What does it matter? Just keep thinking about that. Anyway while you draw a line at "alive" and "human species," the line that matters to me is "personhood" and the difference is it just hasn't developed to that stage yet. Alive and human aren't even in my definition of personhood, sorry.

Yep. Bacteria isn't a human.

This is about equality between all humans. That doesn't mean other lifeforms shouldn't have some rights, I think they should. We should treat life in general as humanely as possible, with room for self-defense and survival as needed. I argue that all humans, being rational beings, have intrinsic value by virtue of what they are. And that it would be unfair for any one group of humans to determine that another group of humans is not deserving of the same rights they are, no matter what their reason. Equality among our species.

Quoting:

Of course, human beings in the embryonic, fetal and early infant stages cannot yet exercise mental functions characteristically carried out by most human beings at later stages of maturity. Still, they have in radical—that is, root form—these very capacities. Precisely by virtue of the kind of entity they are, they are, from the beginning, actively developing themselves to the stages at which these capacities will—if all goes well—be immediately exercisable. Although, similar to infants, they have not yet developed themselves to the stage at which they are self-aware, it is clear that they are rational animal organisms. Having a rational nature is, in the words of Jeff McMahan at Rutgers University (New Brunswick, NJ, USA) a “status-conferring intrinsic property”. The argument is not that every member of the human species should be accorded full moral respect because the more mature members of the species have a status-conferring intrinsic property, as McMahan mistakenly interprets the nature-of-the-kind argument. Instead, we contend that each member of the human species has a rational nature. (Source)

Now you talk about personhood. This is a much better argument in my opinion (although that's just my opinion here) than whether or not an embryo or fetus is alive and of the human species. This is where we really get into the heart of the discussion. I argue that all humans are deserving of personhood, by virtue of what they are - not through some extra condition they must develop in order to qualify.

To me, abortion is age-related discrimination.

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

If you want to convince me, you'd have to persuade me that a fetus has a rich inner life that it consciously desires to see continue. (That's for me to consider it's a person. Then, there's the issue that it's dependent on the woman's body). Personally, I remember becoming a person with a continuous inner life at the age of 3 so you see I'm a lost cause to your cause.

You're mistaken. I don't want to convince you at all. Or anyone else for that matter. I learned a long time ago that arguing politics with people does not ever convince anyone. I had two goals in mind when I made this thread:

1. I wanted to present my ideas about being pro-life. I hoped that in doing so, it would bring a deeper understanding between groups. I feel like many pro-choice people don't know why pro-life people are pro-life. I feel that if pro-choice people understand why we feel the way we do, there might be more acceptance and tolerance for alternative views. And that goes both ways.

2. One of the other reasons I did this was to face my own fears of speaking up when I know it's not going to be favored well by some. I wanted to be true to myself, and not feel like I have to be silent just because my views are not necessarily mainstream views. So it was a sort of challenge to myself, to face a fear.

I am curious though, by your last statement. Does that mean that you would be OK with a mother killing her 2 year old toddler? As you do suggest that your condition for personhood isn't met before 3 years old. What is your thinking on that?

**DarkestDarkness** · 07-22-2022 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

If you want to convince me, you'd have to persuade me that a fetus has a rich inner life that it consciously desires to see continue. (That's for me to consider it's a person. Then, there's the issue that it's dependent on the woman's body). Personally, I remember becoming a person with a continuous inner life at the age of 3 so you see I'm a lost cause to your cause.

While I think I agree with you on what a "person" is in that sense, I am also not sure I follow the rest of your logic there. I don't presume that you're suggesting that a human up to the age of 3 can be terminated just because of that fact in itself, as if the child didn't have the same rights as an older child or adult, because at that point they do have those rights, just about anywhere.

Although I would not put myself on a pro-life side of a discussion like this, my observation at the moment would be that pro-life people seem to be concerned with whether a human (that is not yet developed as a person) should have a right to develop at all or not, a point view that to me does not seem intrinsically flawed or anything like that. No, I don't agree with such a point of view to the point of thinking abortion should be unlawful or legally restricted in some way other than what is necessary for a mother's safety, but I do see some merit to such a point of view, assuming I understand its heart correctly.

And sure, if you were to ask me, especially past me, if I am/was happy with being born and existing, then overwhelmingly I would be giving you a negative reply, maybe neutral at best. I have contemplated assisted euthanasia (legal or not) many times, as well as other things. If my parents had told me that they might not have had me if they could know some of my issues in advance, I would be fine with knowing this. On the other hand, I've seen and known people with problems worse than mine, who I also know generally have always been fairly content with their lives.

**Occipitalred** · 07-23-2022 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by Hilary

1. I wanted to present my ideas about being pro-life. I hoped that in doing so, it would bring a deeper understanding between groups. I feel like many pro-choice people don't know why pro-life people are pro-life. I feel that if pro-choice people understand why we feel the way we do, there might be more acceptance and tolerance for alternative views. And that goes both ways.

This is great if you are pro-choice. Then you can discuss different opinions. But the anti-choice position is not open to choice and different opinions. I can understand that you don't have bad intentions, but it doesn't make it good to remove people's rights and ask for acceptance of your opinion

Originally Posted by Hilary

2. One of the other reasons I did this was to face my own fears of speaking up when I know it's not going to be favored well by some. I wanted to be true to myself, and not feel like I have to be silent just because my views are not necessarily mainstream views. So it was a sort of challenge to myself, to face a fear.

This was also my reason. I didn't come here to convince anyone because I am not an expert. If someone wants help making their mind, there's a lot of resources out there. I participated because I had the instinct to ignore this conversation (because I felt it would be depressing, abrasive and non productive). But we are part of the same community here and thought I should challenge myself to participate.

Originally Posted by Hilary

I argue that all humans are deserving of personhood, by virtue of what they are - not through some extra condition they must develop in order to qualify.

I am curious though, by your last statement. Does that mean that you would be OK with a mother killing her 2 year old toddler? As you do suggest that your condition for personhood isn't met before 3 years old. What is your thinking on that?

You grant personhood to embryos. You mentally constructed their "personhood". Really, you only said they are of the human species and that a human embryo is no different than an adult human.

What matters to me is consciousness: being a subject (instead of an object which does not have a subjective experience). I can imagine different types of subjects. Ex. A specific subject may be aware of just pain, light or food, but not have a sense of self or continuity. A subject that has personhood to me is a subject that has a continuous subjective experience (with perhaps other characteristics). Really, I consider that I became a person gradually across multiple factors and I would estimate the birth of my personhood around 3 years old. But this is vague because there are multiple factors and before becoming a person, I was a subject although I don't remember that. And before I was a subject, I was an object. And before I was a separate entity, everything that has ever led up to me has been many things.

We can value objects. But objects don't value themselves. Basic subjects can value food, pleasant stimuli, absence of pain. Subjects with a sense of self and continuity (personhood) can value themselves and the continuity of their lives.

Because any object can have value, embryos can definitely have great value. However, it's just not the same thing for a woman to choose to discontinue a pregnancy and to murder a person. Those are just not the same actions at all.

So you, Hilary and darkestdarkness, you wondered if I thought it was okay to kill a two year old infant. I hope this clarifies that.

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

And sure, if you were to ask me, especially past me, if I am/was happy with being born and existing, then overwhelmingly I would be giving you a negative reply, maybe neutral at best. I have contemplated assisted euthanasia (legal or not) many times, as well as other things. If my parents had told me that they might not have had me if they could know some of my issues in advance, I would be fine with knowing this. On the other hand, I've seen and known people with problems worse than mine, who I also know generally have always been fairly content with their lives.

Darkestdarkness, I feel for your situation.

Yet, I disagree with these sort of "what if" thought experiments. Now you are a person. Back then the person you are now didn't exist. An infinite potential of other people could have come from a different attempt. But they are just fiction. You are real today.

**IAmCoder** · 07-23-2022 06:00 AM

I really appreciate that we can have this open line of discussion.

Originally Posted by Hilary

Being an embryo, and being fetus, is a stage of human development. We didn't come from an embryo. We didn't come from a fetus. We didn't come from a baby. We WERE an embryo. We WERE a fetus. We WERE a baby.

And if you still disagree, I ask you: if they aren't human, then what are they? And understand that science would not be on your side on that one.

I feel like there is a step missing where the line is being drawn here. According to that line of reasoning, we were also an egg. And in the discussion going on regarding personhood, we must consider that an egg is involved.

I would like to try a new approach by asking some questions.

1.) Is your mother also pro-life and anti-choice?
2.) Did you grow up in a republican family?
3.) Are there already 6 million eggs in some fetuses while in the womb?
4.) How many eggs are girls born with? And how many are produced after birth?
5.) How many eggs are ovulated each month?
6.) Are you against using contraceptives? IUDs? I want to know if you are also against it if the contraceptive thins the lining of the uterus - as an egg may still come into contact with one of the millions of sperm.
7.) Can you re-affirm that you understand that criminalizing abortion does not prevent it?
8.) Some quick stats - can you pull up what percentage of women in America that have had an abortion live below the poverty line?
9.) Given your current beliefs, would you consider an abortion if diagnosed with preeclampsia?
10.) Does denying access to safe, legal abortions lead to more illegal, dangerous ones?
11.) Can you provide a list of things that the democratic agenda does to support your very simple purpose of helping children?
12.) Do you consider a person that is under 18 but pregnant to still be a child?

**Hilary** · 07-23-2022 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

I really appreciate that we can have this open line of discussion.

I feel like there is a step missing where the line is being drawn here. According to that line of reasoning, we were also an egg. And in the discussion going on regarding personhood, we must consider that an egg is involved.

An egg is a part of a person, in particular, part of the mother. A sperm is part of a person, in particular, part of the father. Sperm and egg are not people.

A fertilized egg is a whole, human being that has distinct DNA from both father and mother.

-------------------

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

This is great if you are pro-choice. Then you can discuss different opinions. But the anti-choice position is not open to choice and different opinions. I can understand that you don't have bad intentions, but it doesn't make it good to remove people's rights and ask for acceptance of your opinion

Once again, I could say the exact same thing, flipping it to my argument. "I can understand that you don't bad intentions, but it doesn't make it good to remove pre-born people's rights.."

The only difference is that in your argument, the right comes at cost of killing another person. In my argument, the right comes at a cost of pregnancy for 9 months for a woman who (in over 99% of cases) was a willing, active participant in an activity known to create this very situation.

One thing to remember, there's a difference between accepting a person and agreeing with an idea. What I'm hoping for is tolerance of people who have different views, rather than hatred - which is very common.

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

This was also my reason. I didn't come here to convince anyone because I am not an expert. If someone wants help making their mind, there's a lot of resources out there. I participated because I had the instinct to ignore this conversation (because I felt it would be depressing, abrasive and non productive). But we are part of the same community here and thought I should challenge myself to participate.

That's great. I think we need to have these conversations more often, even though they are hard. Avoiding hard topics doesn't do anything but solidify ourselves in our own opinion.

A lot of people don't agree on things, especially at first, but exposure to new ideas does have a tendency to take root slowly in our minds. In the future, we consider problems from new angles; solutions from new angles. I'm not saying change opinions, per se, but view things differently. And that's a huge win for everyone.

One thing I can even say right now, as a result of this conversation, is that we do need to be extremely careful with medical concerns involving the mother. I know I've argued that abortion is almost never medically necessary, and I do believe that's true, but, should there be any doubt, I think we shouldn't take any chances with the mother's life. So I have softened on this particular issue. I've softened in the understanding that these pregnancies may need to be ended. I still think the way abortion is currently performed isn't the best way to end these pregnancies (early delivery would be more humane if possible, also when not possible, pain meds should be given to fetuses).

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

You grant personhood to embryos. You mentally constructed their "personhood". Really, you only said they are of the human species and that a human embryo is no different than an adult human.

I do. I grant personhood to anyone living who is of the human species. If you're human, in my eyes, you are a person. Doesn't matter how old you are, what stage of development you're in, the color of your skin, your religion, your ethnicity, etc. Human = person. No extra conditions needed for me.

Putting conditions on personhood is the real problem. If people add one condition, that opens the door to adding more conditions. That's a slippery slope that can only lead to further human rights violations, as we've seen in history [holocaust, slavery, genocide, segregation]. Better to draw the line at the moment the new, distinct, human is created, and based on solely what they are, rather than any other arbitrary point.

And again, some humans are now determining personhood for other humans. But here's the problem - all of the humans determining personhood have already been born. They weren't aborted. I call that bias.

I'm not saying that a human embryo is no different from a human adult. They are different. The same way an infant is also very different from a human adult. These are different stages of development; different ages. Just because each stage is different, does not mean that a human being doesn't deserve rights when in one stage, but not the other.

To me, that is age-related discrimination.

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

What matters to me is consciousness: being a subject (instead of an object which does not have a subjective experience). I can imagine different types of subjects. Ex. A specific subject may be aware of just pain, light or food, but not have a sense of self or continuity. A subject that has personhood to me is a subject that has a continuous subjective experience (with perhaps other characteristics). Really, I consider that I became a person gradually across multiple factors and I would estimate the birth of my personhood around 3 years old. But this is vague because there are multiple factors and before becoming a person, I was a subject although I don't remember that. And before I was a subject, I was an object. And before I was a separate entity, everything that has ever led up to me has been many things.

First: We're putting a condition on personhood. We're asking that they be more than just a member of our species.

Second: I argue that we don't know when consciousness begins. We really don't. I argue we err on the side of caution on this one. You mentioned being 3 before you had a "rich inner life". I argue that you did have consciousness before the age of 3. You just don't remember it.

The formation of consciousness and the formation of long term memory are not one and the same. I believe wholeheartedly that newborn babies, for example, have consciousness. They can be awake, alert, aware of surroundings. I also argue wholeheartedly that babies in the womb can also have these exact same traits. We know babies in the womb move around and even play. Spontaneous movement (NOT simply reflexive) occurs at 6 weeks.

You were never an object. An object is a nonliving thing. Living things are not objects. Just because you don't remember your experience of life before the age of 3 does not mean you were an object, and it does not mean that you didn't experience life.

I want to put another thing in your mind here. There are emerging scientific studies that now suggest that even plants may be conscious. Link to study. Link to Article.

Researchers based at the Minimal Intelligence Lab at the University of Murcia, Spain, and the Rotman Institute of Philosophy in London, Canada, placed 20 potted French bean plants in the centre of cylindrical booths. The plants were either alone, or accompanied by a garden cane planted into the ground 30 centimetres away.

The scientists then used time-lapse photography to track the movements of the plants until the tip of the shoots made contact with the canes. They found that the shoots would grow along more predictable paths in the presence of the canes, almost as if they could sense them in their vicinity and adjust their growth patterns as a response.

“Only in the last decade is when we have been associating animals with sentience, answering these questions takes time. If we separate our biases away from thinking that some features only belong to us, then we can move the field forward much faster,” says Dr Paco Calvo, director of the Minimal Intelligence Lab at the University of Murcia and co-author of the study.

This is emerging science. It is not conclusive. But, it goes to show: we don't understand consciousness fully. All life may be conscious, at some level. We should err on the humane side.

Here. I have a video I'd like for you to watch, if you don't mind:

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

However, it's just not the same thing for a woman to choose to discontinue a pregnancy and to murder a person. Those are just not the same actions at all.

Discontinuing a pregnancy is a violent act. It also not performed on a nonliving object. It is performed on a living being.

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

So you, Hilary and darkestdarkness, you wondered if I thought it was okay to kill a two year old infant. I hope this clarifies that.

Forgive me, but I really do not know your position on whether or not it's okay for a mother to kill her 2 year old toddler. Was it a yes or a no?

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

Yet, I disagree with these sort of "what if" thought experiments. Now you are a person. Back then the person you are now didn't exist. An infinite potential of other people could have come from a different attempt. But they are just fiction. You are real today.

I just want to point out that no, "an infinite potential of other people" could not have occurred from "back then". A person's individual and unique characteristics are determined from the embryonic stage. Once in existence, that human being has never existed before, and will never exist again (biologically speaking). I think confusion here centers around a potential human and a human who has already come into existence. Potential humans only exist before fertilization. Just clarifying.

**IAmCoder** · 07-23-2022 10:38 PM

I am sorry if I offended you with any of the questions.

I wanted to point out that all the eggs in a women are produced while they are still in the womb and that women are born with millions of eggs. Men produce several million sperm per day. So there is no scarcity of either and a chance encounter of the two is not as rare as it may seem.

Originally Posted by Hilary

In my argument, the right comes at a cost of pregnancy for 9 months for a woman who (in over 99% of cases) was a willing, active participant in an activity known to create this very situation.

If they were using contraceptive, then no - the activity was not intended or known to create the situation.

https://www.guttmacher.org/report/co...veloping-world

Unintended pregnancy is common: Worldwide, approximately 85 million pregnancies (40% of all pregnancies) were unintended in 2012.1 In the developing world, 74 million unintended pregnancies occur annually, of which a sizable share, 30%, are due to contraceptive failure among women using some type of contraceptive method (whether traditional or modern).

Originally Posted by Hilary

I know I've argued that abortion is almost never medically necessary, and I do believe that's true, but, should there be any doubt, I think we shouldn't take any chances with the mother's life. So I have softened on this particular issue. I've softened in the understanding that these pregnancies may need to be ended.

This is amazing. I had meant to ask if your opinion had changed in any way since the start of the discussion, and this is great to hear.

What about your understanding that denying access to safe, legal abortions leads to more illegal, dangerous abortions - has your awareness on that changed? We had this exchange at the beginning:

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

I'd like to point out that criminalizing abortion does not stop abortions, it just makes abortion less safe. And that goes against your main point.

Originally Posted by Hilary

This is true [...]

I'd like to highlight some stats from the WHO:

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-s...etail/abortion

Restricting women’s access to safe and legal abortion services has important negative health implications. We’ve seen that these laws do not result in fewer abortions. Instead, they compel women to risk their lives and health by seeking out unsafe abortion care.

According to the World Health Organization, 23,000 women die from unsafe abortions each year and tens of thousands more experience significant health complications globally. A recent study estimated that banning abortion in the U.S. would lead to a 21% increase in the number of pregnancy-related deaths overall and a 33% increase among Black women, simply because staying pregnant is more dangerous than having an abortion. Increased deaths due to unsafe abortions or attempted abortions would be in addition to these estimates.

Do you believe the World Health Organization?

I'd also like to point out that we aren't pro-abortion. No one is. It is just about letting women and medical professionals have the choice.

What would it take to get you to watch Dirty Dancing and share your review here? Or re-watch it in light of everything that has come up in this discussion if you have already seen it? I would be very interested to hear how you feel when watching it.

Originally Posted by Hilary

Putting conditions on personhood is the real problem. If people add one condition, that opens the door to adding more conditions. That's a slippery slope that can only lead to further human rights violations, as we've seen in history [holocaust, slavery, genocide, segregation]. Better to draw the line at the moment the new, distinct, human is created, and based on solely what they are, rather than any other arbitrary point.

I'd argue that you put a condition on it by requiring the egg to be fertilized. A just slightly more puritan view would be that a woman shouldn't be allowed to take any contraceptives...

Please stop likening this to the holocaust.

Originally Posted by Hilary

Spoiler for Really great meme:

Your memes are offensive and should not be tolerated. Your intolerance of letting women choose what to do with their body and wipe out unwanted sperm is the slippery slope that is being abused for the rise of fascism:

Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

**Hilary** · 07-24-2022 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

I am sorry if I offended you with any of the questions.

Not at all, although I think they're biased a bit.

(you ask if people were raised republican, for example. But you don't ask if they were raised liberal or democrat. A better question might be - what is your political background? That would be neutral. Even still, it's not appropriate because political background does not have to determine one's stance on pro-life or pro-choice matters. I actually know people who are pro-life democrats. It's also something personal that not everyone is going to want to answer.

Also, I think it's a great idea if you start the questions with yourself.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

I wanted to point out that all the eggs in a women are produced while they are still in the womb and that women are born with millions of eggs. Men produce several million sperm per day. So there is no scarcity of either and a chance encounter of the two is not as rare as it may seem.

Yes.

And when they encounter, they make a new human being.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

If they were using contraceptive, then no - the activity was not intended or known to create the situation.

Yes it is known. Most people know that contraception is never 100%. In fact, when you get non-over-the-counter contraception, they tell you its exact effectiveness. It's also on the box of over-the-counter forms.

When you have sex, you understand that there is a RISK of pregnancy. Even with contraception. That is a risk you choose to take, knowing the potential consequences. I say it is wrong for us to put ourselves in that situation if we think we would get an abortion afterwards.

Abortion should never be used as a secondary form of contraception.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

This is amazing. I had meant to ask if your opinion had changed in any way since the start of the discussion, and this is great to hear.

What about your understanding that denying access to safe, legal abortions leads to more illegal, dangerous abortions - has your awareness on that changed? We had this exchange at the beginning:

No, because I don't think abortion is the correct solution to this problem. I think we can do better than that; better than legalizing killing our children just because some people will choose to put their lives in danger. We can do better than that.

Education would be a big help. I support sex ed, but we're not teaching our kids about abortion. We need to keep up efforts at educating everyone about the DANGERS of abortion; especially unregulated or self-inflicted abortion.

I am a middle school science teacher who teaches sex ed. And yet? NOT ONE THING in my curriculum, NOT ONE THING is about abortion. I am not allowed to stray from the curriculum in that regard.

Why don't we teach our children about what abortion is, and how, if performed unregulated or self-inflicted, it can be dangerous and deadly. We need to be teaching them this. That would go a long way to prevent people from attempting abortions illegally.

Free resources would be a big help. Making sure that pregnant people in stressful situations get the support they need. Pregnancy Crisis Centers around the nation make it their mission to do this. And yet, liberal Senators (Elizabeth Warren and Bob Menendez) are trying to shut them down [see my video posted earlier in response to Summerlander's first post]. They want to shut them down because to them, they are a threat to abortion clinics. They outnumber abortion clinics 3 to 1 (according to Elizabeth Warren). But I say they are part of the SOLUTION. They are trying to HELP women, GIVE women free services that they need, and give them an actual choice. Shutting these services down is not pro-choice. It is pro-abortion.

Changing the culture would also be a big help. We need to make it our mission to erase the stigma around being young and pregnant, or single and pregnant. We need to make it easier for pregnant women and mothers to continue their degrees and career paths. Although, I think we're in a really good place with this, so far, as most mothers can do both, but we do need more. More than that, we need to educate women about the idea that they CAN do both, to help alleviate their fears.

However, no matter what, there will be some people, that despite knowing the dangers, will attempt to give themselves an abortion. That is very sad, but it should not determine the law. Because it is a choice. No one HAS to give themselves a dangerous illegal abortion. No one has to do that. That's a choice. Just like murder, suicide, driving drunk, doing drugs, robbing a store, and anything else illegal, is also a choice. We don't change the laws because people will break them.

Now it's only fair that I ask you, since you asked me. Have you found areas that you have shifted?

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

I'd like to highlight some stats from the WHO: ... Do you believe the World Health Organization?

I believe they have a bias, and it shows.

In Texas, where they enacted an abortion ban after heartbeat detection, the number of abortions decreased by half.

In Ireland, where they banned abortion for many years, number of abortions increased DRAMATICALLY when they legalized it again in 2018.

"Legal abortions in Ireland

Every year, the government publishes the number of pregnancies terminated. Those between 2014 and 2018 took place under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, with those taking place under the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 being published from 2019:
Year Number of abortions
2014 26
2015 26
2016 25
2017 15
2018 32
2019 6,666 <--- (first year legalized is here. 6666, I find that really weird. Like, make me want to go to church and become a believer weird!)
2020 6,577
2021 4,577"

Source is wikipedia.

Remember, your WHO statistics are coming from all around the world, but especially, third would countries. Look at your sources from that site:

2. Ganatra B, Gerdts C, Rossier C, Johnson Jr B R, Tuncalp Ö, Assifi A et al. Global, regional, and subregional classification of abortions by safety, 2010–14: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. The Lancet. 2017 Sep.

3. Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tunçalp Ö, Moller AB, Daniels J et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jun; 2(6):e323-33.

4. Singh S, Maddow-Zimet I. Facility-based treatment for medical complications resulting from unsafe pregnancy termination in the developing world, 2012: a review of evidence from 26 countries. BJOG 2015; published online Aug 19. DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.13552.

Of course they are more dangerous in the developing world. Illegal abortionists do as they will, it's not like in the U.S. where we police people [illegal abortionists with illegal clinics] who break the law. In many of these countries, illegal abortionists can do what they want. Additionally, you're talking about countries that don't have clean running water and proper medical care to begin with. Of course they're going to have more deaths.

But. To equate those numbers to what could *hypothetically* happen in the United States? That's not fair, or accurate. We're not a third world country. We DO have clean running water. We DO have good medical care for people in danger of losing their lives. We DO police and arrest people committing illegal acts, which would include illegal abortionists (just to clarify, I'm talking about illegal abortion clinics. Most illegal abortions are done through illegal clinics).

"A recent study estimated that banning abortion in the U.S. would lead to a 21% increase in the number of pregnancy-related deaths overall and a 33% increase among Black women, simply because staying pregnant is more dangerous than having an abortion. Increased deaths due to unsafe abortions or attempted abortions would be in addition to these estimates. "

"As of 2018, the US had an estimated 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births" Source.

From what I could gather from Wikipedia, the risk of dying from pregnancy in the United States is currently 0.000174% (2018 data). That's very low. It's easy to manipulate statistics to look scarier than they really are.

Is that perfect? No. Nothing is 100% safe. Driving certainly isn't. And this is part of where I've shifted. If a woman, for example, does know about serious health issues that she has, than that's a case where early termination of the pregnancy might be necessary. That's not the case for most women, though. And if you don't have any serious health problems, it's not justifiable.

Just as an aside, if this is a risk you know you can't take, because you know you have health issues, then perhaps you (or your partner) should consider permanent sterilization. That also is an option. And it's probably more humane.

----

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

I'd also like to point out that we aren't pro-abortion. No one is. It is just about letting women and medical professionals have the choice.

I'll happily call you pro-choice rather than pro-abortion if you prefer. I don't mean to be offensive. Part of the reason I have been using that term is because I'm quite mad at Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bob Menendez for wanting to shut down Pregnancy Crisis Centers that help women. That is pro-abortion. Maybe you aren't. I hope not.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

What would it take to get you to watch Dirty Dancing and share your review here? Or re-watch it in light of everything that has come up in this discussion if you have already seen it? I would be very interested to hear how you feel when watching it.

Ehhh.. do I have to? (lol) No, but seriously, if there's a point that you wanted to bring up from the movie (which I have seen, but it was so long ago that I don't really remember much. I do remember something about an abortion), you can just type it out.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

I'd argue that you put a condition on it by requiring the egg to be fertilized. A just slightly more puritan view would be that a woman shouldn't be allowed to take any contraceptives...

This is not a problem of a "condition" being put on. This is a problem of when life begins; when a new human being has been created. Life does not begin before fertilization. Life begins after fertilization. And I don't make those rules.

Seriously, though, this is basic science here. Not to sound condescending (sorry if I do). I teach science, I teach cells, I teach genetics and heredity...

Unfertilized eggs are not a separate organism yet. They do not grow, they do not develop, they are genetically of the mother only.

A fertilized egg is when new human life begins. Now we have a new human in the equation. At this point, the egg is now dividing, growing, has its own unique DNA, etc. Now this is a separate human being from the mother. Now human rights should be starting.

I don't have a problem with contraception. Contraception doesn't kill a human being that's already come into existence.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

Please stop likening this to the holocaust.

I'm not trying to make light of the Holocaust. And I'm not trying to offend anyone, either. I would never do that. That's not what I'm doing here, and you know that.

I am comparing abortion to ALL human rights violations, not just the Holocaust. That includes all forms of genocide, slavery, segregation, eugenics programs, etc. Anytime a human wasn't considered a person. My main point is not to insult or offend anyone. My main point is to show that HISTORY has a habit of turning a blind eye to human rights violations and atrocities. These things happen in our world, and people, masses of people, turn a blind eye, or simply don't see the evil right in front of them.

I ask you to try and relax a little bit. Understand that I'm trying to make a point. You don't have to agree with it, but don't take it out of context, or make it into something it's not.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

Your memes are offensive and should not be tolerated.

They are political statements. You don't have to look at them if you don't want to. I put them in a spoiler. Just don't click on them.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

Your intolerance of letting women choose what to do with their body and wipe out unwanted sperm is the slippery slope that is being abused for the rise of fascism:

It's not wiping out unwanted sperm. It's wiping out human beings. Yes. I am intolerant of people choosing to kill other people. That's not a slippery slope. What is a slippery slope is putting various conditions on human rights. What is a slippery slope is trying to determine a specific age or stage of development for when a child can no longer be killed.

----

I want to point one other thing out. This whole time we've been so intensely focused on embryos. That's what you guys narrow in on - the very very very tip of my argument. But let's talk about some issues you might actually agree with. Let's talk about 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. These are serious. Now we're not just talking about taking the life a human, but also adding cruelty and suffering on top of it.

You have dismemberment, live dismemberment. We're talking about forcefully pulling off the legs and arms of a fetus, crushing its skull, while it's still alive in the womb and able to feel pain. This is legal, guys. No pains meds for the baby. In the room next door? They're trying to save the baby who was just born at the exact same fetal age.

In the 3rd trimester, you have babies injected with lethal injection - digoxin. This causes the baby to go through extreme pain as it suffers a heart attack inside the womb, and then is delivered dead.

We have babies being born alive from failed abortions. LEGALLY, they are allowed to let these living viable babies lie unattended in metal dishes until they die of natural causes. It's not even humane. Even though the baby is born, it's not considered a human. It's considered "an abortion." Even though it's alive and born.

You have full term babies being born, and while their head is kept in the birth canal, and being suffocated, the abortionist drives a tool into its skull. OR, as the baby's head comes out, it is crushed with forceps. Then, and this has actually happened, sometimes the babies still survive! Then, these babies, born alive with their skulls partially crushed, have to endure up to 2-3 days of torture as they die slowly in a metal pan.

Guys, wake up. You wanna talk about embryos all day? For real. You think that's the biggest deal right now? I mean, yeah, I think they should be protected but, the big deal is 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. These are cruel. Cruelty in action.

And we can do better than that. By the way, most of Europe bans abortions after the first trimester (with exceptions for medical issues).

**IAmCoder** · 07-24-2022 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Hilary

Now it's only fair that I ask you, since you asked me. Have you found areas that you have shifted?

Not one bit. Still pro-choice.

Why would the World Health Organization be biased? I'd be interested to know what you think their agenda is. Is this the only thing you disagree with them on? I'm also curious to know if you are you against vaccines and believed that covid was a hoax. No offence, I am just curious because I have noticed a prevalence of these beliefs in Republicans I have talked to. And Amnesty International, the international non-governmental organization focused on human rights - do you think they are biased too? Is this the only human rights violation that you disagree on with them, or do you disagree with the organization itself?

Originally Posted by Hilary

Seriously, though, this is basic science here. Not to sound condescending (sorry if I do). I teach science, I teach cells, I teach genetics and heredity...

Unfertilized eggs are not a separate organism yet. They do not grow, they do not develop, they are genetically of the mother only.

A fertilized egg is when new human life begins. Now we have a new human in the equation. At this point, the egg is now dividing, growing, has its own unique DNA, etc. Now this is a separate human being from the mother. Now human rights should be starting.

I don't have a problem with contraception. Contraception doesn't kill a human being that's already come into existence.

I've worked in the US on an O1-A science visa. So it does not feel condescending to me, just sad.

Let me elucidate that contraception can work by... https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en...trol-85-P01509:

Originally Posted by STANFORD CHILDREN'S HEALTH

Altering the tissue lining [of] the uterus so that a fertilized egg can't implant.

You must not have been aware of this. Otherwise you need to start specifying that you have a problem with contraception - some forms of it at least, or make another small shift... If you can't shift on this, please don't alert the authorities on these findings and have them round up every girl in town with an IUD. It is scary to imagine your government stopping girls on the street or on their way into school on your behalf and using metal detectors to check for copper in their wombs so they can be prosecuted. Is that really something you would want?

According to science, there is a 50% chance that your mother had an "abortion" before you were born:

https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education...issed%20menses:

Originally Posted by University of California San Francisco

In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses.

As you said, this is a slippery slope. To err on the safe side, should we persecute everyone that fails to fall pregnant on the first attempt? It does feel like you have been making up the rules as we go along. You have been drawing the lines and I am just trying to show that someone else will draw the line just a little further right than you are comfortable with if you put them in power.

If life begins at conception, nature aborts roughly half of those lives in their first few weeks. Anyone who researches these laws of nature has to realize that abortion doesn’t run contrary to the laws of nature, but is actually a regularly occurring component of nature. Such laws of nature should be considered before “life begins at conception” laws make murderers of most women who attempt to become pregnant.

I think the 50% comes from in-vitro, and that in actuality "not much more than 25% of successfully fertilized eggs reach the implantation stage, and that fewer than 15% of fertilized eggs result in a birth"

Yes, you have to re-watch Dirty Dancing. Please! Because a big part of it is also a racism and classism thing and I think that if you get a glimpse of what a girl goes through when faced with the choice, even the choice for an unsafe and illegal one - that it could shift your perspective just a little more. I worry that in your haste to save the fetūs, you have not paused to consider what the girls that fall pregnant are going through. There are two sides to the equation, and as you pointed out - the more developed the fetus becomes, the more weight it has in the equation.
This is what Eleanor Bergstein, the writer and co-producer, said about it earlier this year: "if you make a movie in color with pretty people and music and sensual dancing and a beautiful, blond young girl with a face like a delicate princess having no choices and screaming in a hallway under a dirty knife – maybe you’ll change somebody’s mind about what they assumed before."
Maybe you can imagine yourself in the girls shoes for just a moment while watching and see that they don't have many choices in life and are not exactly like murderers and Gestapo agents.

Originally Posted by Hilary

When you have sex, you understand that there is a RISK of pregnancy. Even with contraception. That is a risk you choose to take, knowing the potential consequences. I say it is wrong for us to put ourselves in that situation if we think we would get an abortion afterwards.

I don't think this is accurate. Have you had the opportunity to travel outside of your state or meet any women that live in poverty? I fear that many girls especially in poverty don't have much of a choice. It may be consensual for legal intents and purposes, but a lot of vulnerable women don't actually have a choice but to partner up with someone that they don't necessarily want to for survival. Do you see what I am implying and understand how much it means for them to at least have access to safe abortions? Do you understand how much of an affect your vote has on these girls?

Originally Posted by Hilary

I'll happily call you pro-choice rather than pro-abortion if you prefer. I don't mean to be offensive. Part of the reason I have been using that term is because I'm quite mad at Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bob Menendez for wanting to shut down Pregnancy Crisis Centers that help women. That is pro-abortion.

It is offensive and yes, pro-choice is accurate. I suspect that your anger is misdirected though. Intentionally, for someone else's political gain. Can you please provide a source for these claims - where does it say they want to shut them down? If you are talking about the Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act, you may have been misled. The act only prohibits these centers from engaging in deceptive advertising and misleading, misinforming, and outright lying to pregnant people about the services they provide. So, can you see that you were misled, or do you think it is OK to use disinformation against pregnant people? I think it is very important for us to agree on this specific point.

Originally Posted by Hilary

I'm not trying to make light of the Holocaust. And I'm not trying to offend anyone, either. [...] I am comparing abortion to ALL human rights violations, not just the Holocaust.

I can appreciate that you were not intentionally trying to offend anyone. I am just making you aware that it is offensive and not OK. It might seem normal in the right-wing extremist echo chamber on facebook? or wherever the meme caught your attention, but it is not OK on the world stage. I am trying to give you some context from an outside observer on what it looks like to the rest of the developed world.

https://www.asanet.org/sites/default...nts/beisel.pdf

In the winter of 1985, two young men stood trial in Pensacola, Florida. Charged
with placing bombs in three abortion clinics, the defendants offered their Christmas
morning attack as “a birthday present for Jesus.”

Speaking to the jury in final argument, their attorney asserted that there had been no crime at all.

The bombings were justified, even heroic: "Forty years ago, if they [the bombers] had sabotaged concentration camps, they would be heroes."

We see this is extremist right-wing religious terrorism! On par with religious extremism in the Middle East that also treads on woman's rights.

Can you see why I am concerned that you are being radicalized? And why I am bothered that it is posted by a moderator to a forum frequented by young malleable minds? People don't self-radicalize. This is how it happens and spreads. You may be being manipulated by professionals at this. It starts with memes that you think you can get away with by sneaking them in spoilers. But it is a slippery slope.

If you are truly convinced that American abortion matches the horrors of the Holocaust, and that fetuses are the same as murdered Jews, then the only moral response is to stop it by any means necessary.

**Occipitalred** · 07-24-2022 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Hilary

Forgive me, but I really do not know your position on whether or not it's okay for a mother to kill her 2 year old toddler. Was it a yes or a no?

No, it's not.

**DarkestDarkness** · 07-24-2022 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

You must not have been aware of this. Otherwise you need to start specifying that you have a problem with contraception - some forms of it at least, or make another small shift... If you can't shift on this, please don't alert the authorities on these findings and have them round up every girl in town with an IUD. It is scary to imagine your government stopping girls on the street or on their way into school on your behalf and using metal detectors to check for copper in their wombs so they can be prosecuted. Is that really something you would want?

I'm not sure I'm understanding some of your comments like this, IAmCoder, how did you come up with this? Can you quote what Hilary said that leads you to believe that she would be suggesting something like this?

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

To err on the safe side, should we persecute everyone that fails to fall pregnant on the first attempt?

Again, not sure I understood where this came from, can you contextualise?

**Hilary** · 07-24-2022 07:20 PM

To Occipitalred:

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

No, it's not.

So you're saying that even though a 2 year old does not meet the requirements for personhood as defined by you, they must still have their right to life protected. I ask you this: Why? And why is that they can have that right to live, then, even though they don't fit your criterion for personood, but a baby about to be born does not have this same right to live? Did your criterion for personhood change?

-------------

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

Not one bit. Still pro-choice.

To be honest with you, I already knew what your answer would be. Sometimes, we can be very resistant to other political views. I do this, too. But, it's very healthy to take a step back and say to yourself "Where can I find common ground with other side?" No side is 100% correct. However, it is not easy to do. And I'll admit that, too. That's not saying we have to become a member of the other side, not at all. I wouldn't ask you to become pro-life, for example. But, it's good to see where we can improve upon our own beliefs based on what others bring to the table.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

Why would the World Health Organization be biased? I'd be interested to know what you think their agenda is. Is this the only thing you disagree with them on? I'm also curious to know if you are you against vaccines and believed that covid was a hoax. No offence, I am just curious because I have noticed a prevalence of these beliefs in Republicans I have talked to. And Amnesty International, the international non-governmental organization focused on human rights - do you think they are biased too? Is this the only human rights violation that you disagree on with them, or do you disagree with the organization itself?

Look at the sources of their statistics. They are not basing their numbers off of first world countries. They are basing their numbers off of developing nations. Most of these nations, where abortion is illegal, are located in Central America, South America, and Africa. (Map Here). These are places where they do not have the same level of medical care (that could save a woman's life who's had an illegal abortion), they do not have the same level of cleanliness of water (leading to more infections), and they do not have the same level of policing criminals (allowing for dangerous clinics to continue). They also do not have the same level of education to help women understand the dangers of illegal abortion.

So it's inaccurate to equate that to what would happen to the United States. A better example would be Ireland:

Ireland, a first world country, banned abortion from 1983 to 2018. In this time period, they had some of the LOWEST maternal mortality rates in the world.

Here are there maternal mortality rate statistics from 2014-2017, when abortion was illegal.

Ireland maternal mortality rate for 2017 was 5.00, a 16.67% decline from 2016.
Ireland maternal mortality rate for 2016 was 6.00, a 0% increase from 2015.
Ireland maternal mortality rate for 2015 was 6.00, a 0% increase from 2014.
Ireland maternal mortality rate for 2014 was 6.00, a 0% increase from 2013.

Source.

The death rate is 5.0-6.0 per 100,000 pregnancies. This equates to a mortality rate of 0.00005 - 0.00006 %.

---

I'm not going to go into political beliefs surrounding vaccines in this thread. That would be off topic. Do you want to start another thread on that topic?

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

I've worked in the US on an O1-A science visa. So it does not feel condescending to me, just sad.

I don't know what to tell you here. We're talking basic science. I don't even get to write the curriculum that I teach my students. It's given to me. Human life starts at fertilization. 96% of biologists around the world agree with this statement. Source. An egg is that is not fertilized is not a separate human being yet. It takes both sperm and egg uniting to create new life. Is this something you disagree with?

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

You must not have been aware of this. Otherwise you need to start specifying that you have a problem with contraception - some forms of it at least, or make another small shift... If you can't shift on this, please don't alert the authorities on these findings and have them round up every girl in town with an IUD. It is scary to imagine your government stopping girls on the street or on their way into school on your behalf and using metal detectors to check for copper in their wombs so they can be prosecuted. Is that really something you would want?

I don't have a problem with most contraception. Yes, some contraception can kill an embryo before implantation. I personally don't like these forms of contraception, although I understand that isn't their primary function. It's a potential side effect. Their primary function is still to prevent ovulation. Should they be illegal? I don't know. Probably not, because killing embryos is not the primary function, but I think there are better ways for sure. There are many other types of contraception that don't involve killing embryos. And, I think it's super important that ALL WOMEN taking this form of contraception KNOW how it works and that it can potentially kill an embryo.

Just so you know, scientists have recently found some of these types of contraception to be 1st class carcinogens. Mirena: Source. Nuvaring: Source.

Now that, I'm very concerned about.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

According to science, there is a 50% chance that your mother had an "abortion" before you were born:

https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education...issed%20menses:

That's not an abortion. That's an early miscarriage. An abortion is an elective decision to kill a pre-born human being. A miscarriage (or chemical pregnancy) is when a pre-born human dies naturally while still inside the womb.

I've had a miscarriage. It's not an abortion, at all.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

As you said, this is a slippery slope. To err on the safe side, should we persecute everyone that fails to fall pregnant on the first attempt? It does feel like you have been making up the rules as we go along. You have been drawing the lines and I am just trying to show that someone else will draw the line just a little further right than you are comfortable with if you put them in power.

No one is suggesting that women who "fail to fall pregnant get persecuted."

Before fertilization = no new human life. After fertilization = new human life.

Just for the record, I'm not for criminalizing any women, even if they've had abortions.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

Yes, you have to re-watch Dirty Dancing. Please! Because a big part of it is also a racism and classism thing and I think that if you get a glimpse of what a girl goes through when faced with the choice, even the choice for an unsafe and illegal one - that it could shift your perspective just a little more. I worry that in your haste to save the fetūs, you have not paused to consider what the girls that fall pregnant are going through. There are two sides to the equation, and as you pointed out - the more developed the fetus becomes, the more weight it has in the equation.
This is what Eleanor Bergstein, the writer and co-producer, said about it earlier this year: "if you make a movie in color with pretty people and music and sensual dancing and a beautiful, blond young girl with a face like a delicate princess having no choices and screaming in a hallway under a dirty knife – maybe you’ll change somebody’s mind about what they assumed before."
Maybe you can imagine yourself in the girls shoes for just a moment while watching and see that they don't have many choices in life and are not exactly like murderers and Gestapo agents.

I understand that it's scary. I have had an unplanned pregnancy before (my daughter) in a turbulent relationship on the verge of a divorce. Of course, I'm sure that our situations were still, very different. However, that said, adoption is always an option for these women. Yes, it means they would have to carry to term. Yes, it means they would have to face potential stigma around being young and pregnant. I think the answer to this is not to kill the children, but to change the way we look, as a society, at young and/or unmarried mothers.

It is a choice to get an illegal abortion. No one has to make that choice. There is always another choice:

"To date, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico have enacted safe haven legislation. The focus of these laws is on protecting newborns from endangerment by providing parents with an alternative to criminal abandonment; therefore, the laws are generally limited to very young children. For example, in approximately seven States and Puerto Rico, only infants 72 hours old or younger may be relinquished to a designated safe haven. Approximately 23 States and Guam accept infants up to 30 days old. Other States specify varying age limits in their statutes." Source.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

I don't think this is accurate. Have you had the opportunity to travel outside of your state or meet any women that live in poverty? I fear that many girls especially in poverty don't have much of a choice. It may be consensual for legal intents and purposes, but a lot of vulnerable women don't actually have a choice but to partner up with someone that they don't necessarily want to for survival. Do you see what I am implying and understand how much it means for them to at least have access to safe abortions? Do you understand how much of an affect your vote has on these girls?

Believe it or not, there are other options for women. There are programs and help all across the country. Should we have more? YES. That's a solution. And especially, we should have more outreach to educate them about the many resources and help already available to them. Is the answer to kill the children? NO. We can do better than that. And just because people have difficult circumstances doesn't justify the removal of human rights from other people.

And again, in these difficult circumstances, giving your baby up for adoption is still an option. It's the right option.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

It is offensive and yes, pro-choice is accurate. I suspect that your anger is misdirected though. Intentionally, for someone else's political gain. Can you please provide a source for these claims - where does it say they want to shut them down? If you are talking about the Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act, you may have been misled. The act only prohibits these centers from engaging in deceptive advertising and misleading, misinforming, and outright lying to pregnant people about the services they provide. So, can you see that you were misled, or do you think it is OK to use disinformation against pregnant people? I think it is very important for us to agree on this specific point.

No, she's said it in her own words. She wants see them "shut down in the state of Massachusetts, and shut down throughout the country."

No one can prevent someone from going to get an abortion, if that's what they really want (assuming its legal in their state). Pregnancy Crisis Centers can't stop women from getting an abortion. But, if you walk into a pregnancy crisis center, you're going to be offered information about your pregnancy, that you may choose to accept, if you want. Or you can walk back out. You can even get a free ultrasound and be given pictures of your baby, if you want. You don't have to. This does have a habit of changing a pregnant woman's mind once they've seen the ultrasound pictures, and understand what their fetus currently looks like. It lowers the abortion rate. If someone doesn't want that, and they just want an abortion, they can get one. No one can stop them.

But remember, even many pro-choice people, say they'd like to see abortion "safe, legal, and rare." These centers help to make abortion more rare. They also provide a lot of medical care too, for free, throughout pregnancy for low-income mothers. They are part of the solution.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

I can appreciate that you were not intentionally trying to offend anyone. I am just making you aware that it is offensive and not OK. It might seem normal in the right-wing extremist echo chamber on facebook? or wherever the meme caught your attention, but it is not OK on the world stage. I am trying to give you some context from an outside observer on what it looks like to the rest of the developed world.

I'm sorry that I offended you. Political messages have a tendency to offend people who don't agree with them. I don't know about any "right wing extremist echo chamber" (that's a little offensive, to me, honestly).

To make a connection isn't wrong. To talk about history isn't wrong.

I think you're getting confused between talking about events in history as they relate to a political argument, and insulting or degrading a group of people or what they went through. There is a big difference.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

We see this is extremist right-wing religious terrorism! On par with religious extremism in the Middle East that also treads on woman's rights.

I would never support any kind of bombing of any clinics. Ever. Of course their attorney is going to say that. He's a lawyer. They say whatever they have to, to win a case. That doesn't mean that all pro-life people want to see abortion clinics bombed. I want to see this resolved peacefully.

But, you should know, this goes both ways. Pregnancy Crisis Centers are also frequently bombed and attacked. Article. Another article. These are just recent ones, and you can easily google more. There have been many many many.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

Can you see why I am concerned that you are being radicalized? And why I am bothered that it is posted by a moderator to a forum frequented by young malleable minds? People don't self-radicalize. This is how it happens and spreads. You may be being manipulated by professionals at this. It starts with memes that you think you can get away with by sneaking them in spoilers. But it is a slippery slope.

IAmCoder, I am going to ask you not to bring my Moderator status into this conversation. This is a political thread that I posted in the political section of the forum. Everyone here is allowed to post their political views. If it bothers you too much to hear other views, know that you do not have to participate.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

If you are truly convinced that American abortion matches the horrors of the Holocaust, and that fetuses are the same as murdered Jews, then the only moral response is to stop it by any means necessary.

I think abortion matches all human rights violations, to some degree or another, because it is one. This is my view. I'm not sure why you're so focused specifically on the Holocaust, when I've been focusing on ALL issues of human rights in history.

I do feel that we should stop abortion. But never by any means necessary. I don't agree with the statement: the end justifies the means. That's the exact kind of thinking that allows abortion. I believe in peaceful resolution.

**DarkestDarkness** · 07-25-2022 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by Hilary

The death rate is 5.0-6.0 per 100,000 pregnancies. This equates to a mortality rate of 0.00005 - 0.00006 %.[/B]

Looking over at the source again, I just wanted to correct you and mention that it would actually equate to 0.005 - 0.006 %, which is still an equally small figure, even for large scale totals. Remember, for percentages we need to multiply by 100 after the division is done, since technically 1.00 after a division is what would equal 100% and something like 1.20 would equal 120% and so on. I make this mistake too sometimes when working out percent figures, mostly out of forgetfulness.

Originally Posted by Hilary

I'm not sure why you're so focused specifically on the Holocaust, when I've been focusing on ALL issues of human rights in history.

I don't get why this "Holocaust focus" is happening either. I also find it interesting that you, IAmCoder, seem keen on insisting that Hilary's points of view on this thread topic to be "fascist"-like. Maybe they can come across as a bit pushy if you're thinking of it in regards to lawmaking, sure. But what isn't pushy with regards to lawmaking and governmental administration? Most people who actually have the power to enact new laws just seem to do what they want anyway, and let us, the peasants, be damned.

Some politicians seem to be capable individuals, it seems, though I don't think they're generally near the top or at the decision-making level that matters most of the time. This is just my opinion, at any rate.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

If you are truly convinced that American abortion matches the horrors of the Holocaust, and that fetuses are the same as murdered Jews, then the only moral response is to stop it by any means necessary.

Okay so, I'll bite.

As Hilary has clarified her intent on this, I put it to you that one "horrible" thing having happened does not make other "horrible" things any easier to deal with, for those people that have to live with whatever that may be. Say something as simple as this: say I am injured in accident and recover but with a permanent disability. Do you think that the knowledge of the Holocaust, or of the atomic bombings (not horrifying enough for you?) and so on would make my life any easier at that point? Watching a documentary with archive/historical footage on those things is a great way to cheer up, isn't it?

This is akin to suggesting that: "because Jesus died for all our sins, all our lives are all automatically better!"

Let me add again that I do not agree with Hilary's intended position; I do not hold any personal belief that abortion should be illegalised in full; I do agree with her points on educating people and perhaps trying to avoid abortion unnecessarily, especially in advanced stages of pregnancy. That said, I also do not see reason to some of your arguments.

Part of what I am hearing from both sides here makes enough sense to me, but not things such as whatever it was that I quoted from you IAmCoder, above.

**Hilary** · 07-25-2022 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

Looking over at the source again, I just wanted to correct you and mention that it would actually equate to 0.005 - 0.006 %, which is still an equally small figure, even for large scale totals. Remember, for percentages we need to multiply by 100 after the division is done, since technically 1.00 after a division is what would equal 100% and something like 1.20 would equal 120% and so on. I make this mistake too sometimes when working out percent figures, mostly out of forgetfulness.

Thank you for catching that. You're very right.

**IAmCoder** · 07-25-2022 03:29 PM

Regarding the World Health Organization, you said:

Originally Posted by Hilary

I believe they have a bias, and it shows.

[...]

So it's inaccurate to equate that to what would happen to the United States. A better example would be Ireland:

Ireland, a first world country, banned abortion from 1983 to 2018. In this time period, they had some of the LOWEST maternal mortality rates in the world.

Here are there maternal mortality rate statistics from 2014-2017, when abortion was illegal.

No. Your statistics are biased, and I'd like to show you why.

How did you decide on 2014-2017?

During that time, the Irish Constitution guaranteed the right of women to travel abroad to obtain abortion services. Every year, large numbers of women traveled to the UK and other countries like The Netherlands to obtain abortions. England is 12 miles from Ireland. That's like from El Paso to Juarez, except you hop on a ferry and the border is open.

Number of women with Irish addresses seeking terminations in England:
2013: 3679
2014: 3735
2015: 3451
2016: 3265

These numbers are very conservative as many women don't give their address to clinics they attend in the UK or elsewhere.

You can access the raw numbers from the UK Department of Health here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collec...land-and-wales and read about it here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...tion-1.3481581 - "more than 170,000 Irish women travelled abroad for an abortion".

Do you understand how biased your numbers are now? For the sake of this discussion, can you agree that Ireland is not a better example and that it is inaccurate to equate that?

So can we now agree that the World Health Organization is more trustworthy? Please take another look at their fact sheet with this in mind: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-s...etail/abortion

Originally Posted by Hilary

I'm not going to go into political beliefs surrounding vaccines in this thread. That would be off topic. Do you want to start another thread on that topic?

Political beliefs have no place in a discussion on vaccines. And it is not off topic, as I am trying to ascertain your level of entrenchment. It was a yes or no question, so I will read between the lines and assume that you are anti-vaccine and disagree with the World Health Organization on that one too. You also neglected to answer whether you believed covid was a hoax, so I will have to assume that you also disagree with the medical professionals of the world on that one. Please speak up and correct me if I have interpreted your responses and non-responses incorrectly. I am just trying to pin down where your beliefs diverge from mainstream science and medicine and map them out, so I can help you see.

I need to press you for an answer again on Amnesty International, the international non-governmental organization focused on human rights. Is abortion the only human rights violation that you disagree on with them? Just looking for a simple yes or no.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-d...bortion-facts/

Originally Posted by Amnesty International

Access to safe abortion services is a human right.

Human rights law clearly spells out that decisions about your body are yours alone – this is what is known as bodily autonomy.

Forcing someone to carry on an unwanted pregnancy, or forcing them to seek out an unsafe abortion, is a violation of their human rights, including the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy.

In many circumstances, those who have no choice but to resort to unsafe abortions also risk prosecution and punishment, including imprisonment, and can face cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and discrimination in, and exclusion from, vital post-abortion health care.

Access to abortion is therefore fundamentally linked to protecting and upholding the human rights of women, girls and others who can become pregnant, and thus for achieving social and gender justice.

Amnesty International believes that everyone should be free to exercise their bodily autonomy and make their own decisions about their reproductive lives including when and if they have children. It is essential that laws relating to abortion respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of pregnant persons and not force them to seek out unsafe abortions.

Originally Posted by Hilary

No, she's said it in her own words. She wants see them "shut down in the state of Massachusetts, and shut down throughout the country."

No one can prevent someone from going to get an abortion, if that's what they really want (assuming its legal in their state).

I watched the video, but did not hear her say it in the video. But I can see why she would say something like that and found other sources. I will assume that you are against the Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act, and are OK with these centers using disinformation against pregnant people, because you didn't answer that question. So I'm under that impression that you think it is OK for them to lie about providing abortion care, and then harass and frighten pregnant girls. And if they are on the brink of poverty and were only able to get one day off to travel to an abortion clinic, only to find that it is a religiously-inspired mission full of pro-lifers and forced-birthers. I think that is cruel and should be stopped. I think that if the crisis centers can be honest and attract people to their services with truthful information, then power to them. But they should not be allowed to use medical disinformation and prevent people from getting an abortion, because they can and do prevent people. Have you had a chance to watch Dirty Dancing?

Why did you post that specific video to prove she said it when it didn't show her saying it? It seemed like propaganda to me, so I looked up EWTN and read that "Pope Francis is supported universally by Catholics around the world. However, there are two exceptions: American bishops, and Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN)." The Pope said that EWTN's attacks on him are “the work of the devil". Are you against the Pope too? The guy speaking in the video Chris Bedford, from RightForge. These are the professionals I was warning you about, their income depends on fanning the flames of political polarization. His business model is to host right-wing platforms that no other providers will, like when Twitter suspended Trump for incitement of violence.

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

I don't get why this "Holocaust focus" is happening either.

I explained that is incitement of violence. Hilary brought it up and referenced the Holocaust 4 times in the beginning. Just because Hilary's moral response to stop something she equates to the horrors of the Holocaust is not by any means necessary, does not mean that the kids who stumble on this thread and consume her memes and comparisons won't be driven to extremism. I am not the one posting memes and equating Pregnancy Crisis Centers with concentration camps which could radicalize someone. So it does not go both ways.

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

You must not have been aware of this. Otherwise you need to start specifying that you have a problem with contraception - some forms of it at least, or make another small shift... If you can't shift on this, please don't alert the authorities on these findings and have them round up every girl in town with an IUD. It is scary to imagine your government stopping girls on the street or on their way into school on your behalf and using metal detectors to check for copper in their wombs so they can be prosecuted. Is that really something you would want?

I'm not sure I'm understanding some of your comments like this, IAmCoder, how did you come up with this? Can you quote what Hilary said that leads you to believe that she would be suggesting something like this?

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

To err on the safe side, should we persecute everyone that fails to fall pregnant on the first attempt?

Again, not sure I understood where this came from, can you contextualise?

Yes, this is where it came from:

Originally Posted by Hilary

the mother should not be able to electively kill the baby

Originally Posted by Hilary

The reason I say that it is the greatest human rights violation of our time is because of the sheer numbers of babies being killed. Over 63 million since Roe v. Wade was passed. That's why. Do you understand now?

Originally Posted by Hilary

That better way is working out issues, via a rule of law, and rights,

At the end of the day, a law should not be stricken null and void just because some people are going to break it. Some people are going to buy illegal guns, too. And illegal drugs. Does this mean we should legalize all guns, including military grade fully automatic machine guns because some people are going to buy them on the black market anyway? No. We don't make it legal. We keep a law, and do our best to enforce it.

That's where the real solution lies. In making abortion illegal AND unthinkable.

My main point is this:

The fact that some people will break the law and commit abortions that may be unsafe does not justify the violent taking of life from human beings.

and

The fact that some people will break the law does not justify not having the law.

Originally Posted by Hilary

A fertilized egg is when new human life begins. Now we have a new human in the equation. At this point, the egg is now dividing, growing, has its own unique DNA, etc. Now this is a separate human being from the mother. Now human rights should be starting.

Originally Posted by Hilary

I don't have a problem with contraception. Contraception doesn't kill a human being that's already come into existence.

Originally Posted by Hilary

Yes, some contraception can kill an embryo before implantation. I personally don't like these forms of contraception, although I understand that isn't their primary function. It's a potential side effect. Their primary function is still to prevent ovulation. Should they be illegal? I don't know.

There are many other types of contraception that don't involve killing embryos.

DarkestDarkness, do you see how I came up with that? Please le me know if you do! If you read her posts from the beginning I am sure you can find some more. I wanted to point out what a mess it would be if we used this thread as a base to codify law and show that it is irrational and dangerous.

But the rules have changed again since yesterday and it is now actually OK to kill the human being that's already come into existence under some circumstances. Or did I find another part of where you've shifted, Hillary? Are you still comfortable being labeled a forced-birther?

Originally Posted by Amnesty International

Over the last 25 years, more than 50 countries have changed their laws to allow for greater access to abortion, at times recognizing the vital role that access to safe abortion plays in protecting women’s lives and health. Ireland joined that list on 25 May 2018 when, in a long-awaited referendum, its people voted overwhelmingly to repeal the near-total constitutional ban on abortion.

You are on the wrong side of history, science, medicine, logic and reason on this.

**Hilary** · 07-25-2022 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

No. Your statistics are biased, and I'd like to show you why.

How did you decide on 2014-2017?

I'm looking at the most recent data while abortion was still illegal. Did you want more? Here you go:

2017 5.00 -16.67%
2016 6.00 0.00%
2015 6.00 0.00%
2014 6.00 0.00%
2013 6.00 0.00%
2012 6.00 -14.29%
2011 7.00 16.67%
2010 6.00 -14.29%
2009 7.00 0.00%
2008 7.00 16.67%
2007 6.00 0.00%
2006 6.00 -14.29%
2005 7.00 16.67%
2004 6.00 0.00%
2003 6.00 0.00%
2002 6.00 -14.29%
2001 7.00 0.00%
2000 7.00 0.00%

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

During that time, the Irish Constitution guaranteed the right of women to travel abroad to obtain abortion services. Every year, large numbers of women traveled to the UK and other countries like The Netherlands to obtain abortions. England is 12 miles from Ireland. That's like from El Paso to Juarez, except you hop on a ferry and the border is open.

An important distinction:

The particular statistics you quoted were about potential deaths resulting from pregnancy in general, as they say "staying pregnant is more dangerous than having an abortion." But - it is clear that in first world countries, maternal mortality rate is low. It doesn't really matter if abortion is happening or not in these countries - death from pregnancy is low. But, in first world countries, like Ireland, where abortion was banned, it was still low - some of the lowest in the world. And, furthermore, they can make statistics look way scarier than they really are. When you're looking at very low numbers (below a %), a 33% increase is still a very low number.

Additionally, not all women who had unplanned pregnancies had abortions in Great Britain. Many did, but, the statistics for abortions jumped almost double to the numbers you've given the year they were legalized in Ireland. That makes sense. More abortions are going to take place if they are easily accessible.

Are we talking about pregnancy being more dangerous than abortion, or are we talking about deaths resulting from illegal abortion?

Most of the article you gave from the WHO refers to countries in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central and South America. And no doubt, in these regions, unsafe abortion is a serious problem. But, in developed regions, they say "it is estimated that 30 women die for every 100 000 unsafe abortions." Notice, they use the word "unsafe abortions" not "illegal abortions".

Given this statistic, the percentage is still: 0.03% of unsafe abortions (and I did it right this time ).

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

Political beliefs have no place in a discussion on vaccines. And it is not off topic, as I am trying to ascertain your level of entrenchment. It was a yes or no question, so I will read between the lines and assume that you are anti-vaccine and disagree with the World Health Organization on that one too. You also neglected to answer whether you believed covid was a hoax, so I will have to assume that you also disagree with the medical professionals of the world on that one. Please speak up and correct me if I have interpreted your responses and non-responses incorrectly. I am just trying to pin down where your beliefs diverge from mainstream science and medicine and map them out, so I can help you see.

Let me make something very clear: ^ These are your words. They are not mine. I am choosing not to give you mine.

You don't need to "ascertain my level of entrenchment".

People are entitled to their own political beliefs. You need to respect that. I'm going to ask you to stop questioning me about my other political views, as they're unrelated, and not your business.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

I watched the video, but did not hear her say it in the video. But I can see why she would say something like that and found other sources. I will assume that you are against the Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act, and are OK with these centers using disinformation against pregnant people, because you didn't answer that question. So I'm under that impression that you think it is OK for them to lie about providing abortion care, and then harass and frighten pregnant girls. And if they are on the brink of poverty and were only able to get one day off to travel to an abortion clinic, only to find that it is a religiously-inspired mission full of pro-lifers and forced-birthers. I think that is cruel and should be stopped. I think that if the crisis centers can be honest and attract people to their services with truthful information, then power to them. But they should not be allowed to use medical disinformation and prevent people from getting an abortion, because they can and do prevent people. Have you had a chance to watch Dirty Dancing?

Unlike your assumptions about me, I am not for misleading anyone. I think centers should be honest about what they do and do not do. I'm not sure how much of that is really going on. I'm sure on some level it is, but I also think it may be exaggerated. One thing I've noticed is that this is a reaction to Roe being overturned. Additionally, shutting down all of these centers would be a great disservice to women who want help.

What I can say is that I'm volunteering with one of these centers (admittedly just starting). Being dishonest is not something I would ever intentionally do to anyone, nor would I sit idly by if I saw someone else being dishonest. That said, no one can force a person to not get an abortion. At any point, that person can leave and go to an abortion clinic.

I'm not going to watch Dirty Dancing.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

Why did you post that specific video to prove she said it when it didn't show her saying it? It seemed like propaganda to me, so I looked up EWTN and read that "Pope Francis is supported universally by Catholics around the world. However, there are two exceptions: American bishops, and Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN)." The Pope said that EWTN's attacks on him are “the work of the devil". Are you against the Pope too? The guy speaking in the video Chris Bedford, from RightForge. These are the professionals I was warning you about, their income depends on fanning the flames of political polarization. His business model is to host right-wing platforms that no other providers will, like when Twitter suspended Trump for incitement of violence.

I liked the video I posted. You don't have to watch the videos I post if you don't want to. You can research and watch your own.

Just because something doesn't align with your political views, does not make it "propaganda". Believe it or not, people honestly disagree on issues. That's healthy. That's democracy in action. It's not something that should be shut down as "propaganda". It's something that should be encouraged. If we only have one view present, and we stop any other views from being heard, that leads to real problems. That's why, in the U.S., we have the first amendment.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

I explained that is incitement of violence. Hilary brought it up and referenced the Holocaust 4 times in the beginning. Just because Hilary's moral response to stop something she equates to the horrors of the Holocaust is not by any means necessary, does not mean that the kids who stumble on this thread and consume her memes and comparisons won't be driven to extremism. I am not the one posting memes and equating Pregnancy Crisis Centers with concentration camps which could radicalize someone. So it does not go both ways.

No one is "radicalizing" anyone. People are allowed to make up their own minds on issues. No one is inciting violence.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

Yes, this is where it came from:

DarkestDarkness, do you see how I came up with that? Please le me know if you do! If you read her posts from the beginning I am sure you can find some more. I wanted to point out what a mess it would be if we used this thread as a base to codify law and show that it is irrational and dangerous.

For the last time, I don't want to see any women punished for "not falling pregnant". That's ridiculous. And, I'll say this again, just so that we're super crystal clear: I don't want to see any women punished for having an illegal abortion, either.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

YBut the rules have changed again since yesterday and it is now actually OK to kill the human being that's already come into existence under some circumstances. Or did I find another part of where you've shifted, Hillary? Are you still comfortable being labeled a forced-birther?

I don't think so at all. I think all humans should be protected. It's never okay to kill a human. If destroying embryos is a specific type of birth control's main way of functioning, that's not contraception anymore. That's an abortifacient. I wouldn't support that.