I must have got lost in the discussion at some point, sorry.

To recap:



If you're saying that you agree there are people that think increased demand for abortions is a good thing to work towards, then I can see how everything I've said so far would not make sense. I wasn't clear on that point until now. Sorry.

This post was edited by Kayeto on Feb 2 2021 02:19am

To clarify: I know people who believe abortion quotas exist for the sake of harvesting stem cells.

To clarify: I know people who believe abortion quotas should be increased for the sake of harvesting stem cells.

To clarify: I think both categories are idiots. PP will gain monetarily based on simple quota increases WITHOUT selling fetal tissue.

We on the same page?

key connection there: Do those people think that increasing the demand for abortions (aka more people wanting more abortions) is a good goal to work toward?

I can honestly say that I know people on both sides of the fence.

Part of my issue here is that I see abortion as the murder of a defenseless human. However, I know many people who I get along with just fine who see developing babies as mere cells, and believe that the medical advancements that benefit all humanity could be propelled by encouraging and even paying women to get abortions.

There's a lot of crazy in the world, and my principles are not exactly in line to understand much of it.

Edit: Imagine how many women would get pregnant as often as possible if they were being paid $10,000 per abortion. Incentivizing such activity solely for the purpose of medical research is not beyond those who have no value for human life.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 2 2021 02:36am

It is illegal to profit from the selling of fetal tissue for research, according to federal law. All that can legally occur is a reimbursement for things like processing and transporting.

Correct. For now. But just a few decades ago, Abortion was illegal in the majority of states.

Laws change.

In that case, I honestly have been misunderstanding all your posts up to this point. I didn't realize you were saying that you believe there are people who want to increase the demand for abortions.

In that case, my idea of a productive conversation would be to highlight that point and see if, collectively as a country, we can get people to agree that people with Viewpoint A actually exist. If we could get everyone to agree on that, it would help move the conversation forward.

This post was edited by Kayeto on Feb 2 2021 03:03am

What's the point? As I said in my rebuttal, PP already have quotas. They want more abortions for a higher profit regardless of medical research.

It's not helpful in any way, under current laws, to examine people who believe more abortions is good for medical advancement, because PP is a business, and operates for profit, not idealism.

The larger point is to share more substantive information and have better conversations. The specific point would depend on the individual and the conversation that you're having. Here is a hypothetical example of how it might go in the case of one person:

--Let's say there's a conversation that includes a staunch pro-choicer (Jill) and a woman who has had an abortion (Mary). Jill says she supports a woman's right to choose. Mary tells the story of her abortion.

--Mary says how she went to a health care professional unsure of what she wanted to do. After a conversation, she walked out of the room with an appointment for an abortion later and ended up getting it. After the whole process was over, she looked back on the conversation and now feels that she had been "talked into it". Mary was emotional and got a lot of fancy jargon from a charismatic guy in a fancy suit who showed her all kinds of pictures and warned about how dangerous it could be to have a baby. Afterwards, Mary realized that the facility had a financial incentive to lead her to that "choice". Mary argues, from experience, that as long as there is a system in place to manipulate vulnerable women and lead them toward a particular "choice", that the system we have isn't in line with Jill's main value, which is for women to choose.

--If Jill doesn't believe that the clinic's financial incentive existed, then she would be less able to understand Mary's perspective. But if both participants are able to mutually agree on the fact that some people might be pushing for more abortions (as though they are a good thing), that can help them have a better conversation. Obviously, a similar situation could happen in reverse. I've seen stories of clinics who are manipulating woman out of getting an aborted that they wanted. I don't want anyone to take my example and act like I'm being one-sided about it.

Obviously that's just a simple example. But in general, if we could iron out the facts of the situation we would be able to have better conversations. If Mary had instead talked to someone who claims "People with Viewpoint A don't actually exist" then it would be hard to talk to that person further because they can't agree on the barebones facts of the situation.

This post was edited by Kayeto on Feb 2 2021 03:42am