this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
256 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43912 readers
842 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is flawed logic, I want to develop the economy so people can afford to have a family and women don't feel the need to abort their child because they can't afford to have or raise a child. It would be preferable if people took personal responsibility and not have sex if they can't afford children and not delve into hendonism having sex to have fun. I think it's wrong for men to be pro-abortion just to exploit women into having sex without consequences for yourself.
The fact that you think that's the only reason (or even just the main reason) people get abortions shows how you, like most anti-abortionists, haven't bothered to look at the facts and have your head so far stuck in the sand that its not even worth talking to you.
There are other reasons but it's largely to do with being in a capitalist system with the cost of living causing hardship straining the ability to afford a home let alone raise a family.
So are things like non-viable pregnancies due to the inability to afford a home? How about rape? How about a minor kicked out because their parents don't approve, is their inexperience, immaturity, and lack of support just because they can't afford a house? What if it's a viable pregnancy, but the baby will be brain dead and require constant care; is cost of living the only burden the parents have to be concerned about? What if there's only a chance it's non-viable, but delaying the abortion puts the mother at risk; at what percent chance is a person allowed to terminate the pregnancy and not put their body at risk? 50% chance of living? 10%? Less than 1%?
These aren't exceptions, these are the types of reasons people get abortions. Let me say it again with emphasis: These aren't exceptions, these are the types of reasons people get abortions. It is so God damn ignorant to think the main reason people get abortions is because they're poor and can't afford to have kids. And to plow ahead and support anti-abortion legislation isn't just ignorant, it's dangerously idiotic.
As we are already seeing in states that have banned abortion, even ones that have some half assed medical exemption, doctors just won't perform them. Or they'll wait to perform them until it's much more risky; like when the patient is literally bleeding out. What doctor is going to risk getting constantly sued (and let's just set aside how fucking asinine it is to allow lawsuits from third-parties in no way affected) because some jackass isn't convinced it was REALLY medically necessary?
Here's an idea, how about we leave the decision of abortion up to doctors and their patient's? That way, we don't have to try and legislate around all the very legitimate reasons people get abortions. Do you think it's immoral? Great, no one's forcing you to get one and others having them has literally zero impact on your life.
Those are issues yes, however from the information I've looked at the majority of abortions are because of affordability. First off you can't get pregnant just because of getting kicked out of a house, however housing should be allocated for that scenario. You're assuming I would pass laws to ban it, your not seeking out what I intend, the point is to develop the economy and provide for people in abundance so women no longer feel the need to get an abortion because they can't afford to raise a family.
So you don't want to ban it, but rather change the circumstances in society and individual people's lives so they don't want to get them in the first place? Congratulations! You're pro-choice.
The fact you view politics as a zero sum sports game is the problem in pro or anti, us vs them. You're mistaken I'm against the practice I just go about it a different way.
You can be against abortion and still be pro-choice. No one is pro-abortion. You want to go about it in a way that changes the circumstances in people's lives so they choose not to have an abortion. So you do think the person's choice matters. And you can see circumstances for why someone would choose to abort. But note how you don't want to take actually away their choice, just change the circumstances so they don't make that choice. That's because...
You're pro-choice.
No I'm against the practice and I don't believe in the ideology of liberalism I am not pro-choice choice is an illusion presented from the environment.
You don't want to institute a ban, but would rather influence people's choices. That's pro-choice, dumbass. Anyways you cut it, that's pro-choice.
Influence no, a material solution with a planned economy to serve everyone's needs in society so everyone has necessities and luxuries to afford and have a happy and healthy life. My solution goes beyond your simple petty plaster over a gaping wound.
Please keep going with that train of thought
What is your intended outcome of them having a happy and healthy life? Is it so they... choose... not to have abortions?
That they majority doesn't need one because people in a planned economy wouldn't have to the stress of affording a mortgage as housing would be allocated, wouldn't have to worry about work because jobs would be allocated, wouldn't have to worry about utility bills because resources would be allocated for need with the change of the economic calculation and wouldn't worry about inflation causing food prices to fluctuate. Come on it's not that hard to determine the factors.
The intended outcome is to develop the economy, develop the productive forces to provide for everyone in a planned economy. And hopefully bring the death rate down caused by capitalism.
Serious question: do you want to ban abortion before you have developed your country's economy to "provide for everyone", or after?
N.B: 45% of the abortions in the world are unsafe. It is a leading cause of maternal mortality and millions of women are hospitalized each year due to complications of unsafe abortions.
I want to provide material abundance so women don't feel the need to have to have them.
@foresight what if my partner and I just don't want kids? Even if we're economically secure? Are we not allowed to fuck because it offends your sensibilities? Because, uh, no. Don't like abortion? Don't have an abortion. I'm all for reducing the number by economic and social improvements, but there are cases where a woman does not for whatever reason want to grow another human inside of her body and that's her right.