254
A Growing Share Of Americans Think States Shouldn’t Be Able To Put Any Limits On Abortion
(fivethirtyeight.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
254 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2723 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So you just absolutely refuse to engage in the thought experiment if the result of it proves you wrong.
If you can end the pregnancy without killing the fetus, but you kill the fetus, should that be illegal?
It's not a fetus once it's born and killing it would be infanticide. Why don't you know this?
What does "once it's born" have to do with this conversation? And why are you dodging my question:
Do you know how loudly dodging this question speaks? You're basically admitting it.
I think you're not thinking through the complications of the question. If you had to kill the fetus to save the life of the mother rather than allow it to be born, should that be legal? If the fetus is discovered to have a fatal flaw that will allow it to live only a few days in severe agony if it isn't put out of its misery immediately, should that be legal?
Or should we allow all pregnancies that are viable in terms of a successful birth happen that way regardless of circumstance?
So what you're saying is that it depends? Yeah, I agree. And we both therefore disagree "States Shouldn’t Be Able To Put Any Limits On Abortion". We also therefore agree it's fine for the government to have some control over your body.
What is you think we disagree on, and why?
Where did I say I disagreed with that? Are you putting words in my mouth? Otherwise, please quote me.
If you disagree with nothing I'm saying, what was you were hoping you'd added to the conversation?
Ah, so you are putting words in my mouth. If you wish to have a discussion with someone you imagine you're talking to, I will be happy to leave you two to it.
How is asking you what you think putting words in your mouth? If there's some point you want to make, just make it. If there's some point you have made you think I have wrong, just clarify it.
You didn't ask me what I thought. You declared that we both disagreed with something. Please, again, quote me. Because otherwise, it's a lie.
I have invited you multiple times to tell me what you think. It's not my job to help you find your tongue. Speak or don't.
You also decided to tell me what I thought. Right here:
I did not disagree that states shouldn't be able to put any limits on abortion and I did not agree that it's fine for the government to have control over your body. I made neither of those claims. You lied.
I think that's about as many invitations to say something of substances I'm going to watch you reject before I decide you have nothing of substance to say at all.
Why should I say anything substantive to you when you're going to lie about what I think? What's the point? You'll just lie again.
Do you have a crush on me? Because if so, I'm not interested. Otherwise there's no reason for you to still be talking to me.
No, I would just like to know why you lied about what I think.
"Oh my god, a premise, I just have to accept it!" -- your imaginary version of me.
I showed very clearly that you lied. You claim I believe the exact opposite of what I believe. I quoted you. Are you trying to gaslight me now and still claim I agree with something I absolutely do not agree with? Do you really think that will work?