If life begins at conception, why is there not widespread outrage at fertility clinics? I've never seen people holding signs outside of one. The easy answer is because it's about controlling women's bodies and not actually a moral abjection to killing a potential life. This is also why pro-lifers don't support policies that are proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies, such as increased access to sex education, maternity/paternity leave, cheap/free access to higher education, or policies that help the working class in general.



It's not semantic, it's a common meme spread by the religious and pro-lifers going back decades. Calling it semantic is an attempt to distance the belief when called out on the hypocrisy.

you're projecting hard there, saudi-arabia. the reality of yours is suffering and disenfranchisement, backwardness and inequality. mine's the opposite.

What about it? Keeping people from being killed is pretty much the pinnacle of justice.

There should not be mandatory military service, but it is also not analogous to this. Taxation is theft.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/just-beginning-after-texas-victory-anti-abortion-rights-activists-could-n1278492

in reality its priority #2 after abortion is attacked, and has been a fringe conversation among pro lifers for a while as its grown in popularity. specifically because in many cases its used in non-nuclear family settings and by gay partners. something pro lifers also dont like.

im not pro life, just as an fyi.

If military service or taxation prevent people from getting killed, how is that not part of the pinnacle of justice?

Almost like the number one reason is about controlling women and not actually about reducing the number of "dead babies"

I see nothing wrong with gay people adopting babies resulting from unwanted or surrogate pregnancies.

lol, what is "dead center" on this issue? abortions should be half a right?

i think you're missing the interesting part of the miscarriage argument, which is not intentional miscarriages, but accidental ones. if the point of anti-choicers is not to pressure and punish women for their choices, but merely to "protect life", they should be outraged that not billions of tax dollars are put into researching and preventing accidental miscarriages, yet i have seen none of them push for that, or protest in front of research facilities to pressure scientists into focussing on it...

also, could you rephrase the point about stawmen and "fringe baiting" maybe, i'm not sure i understand what exactly you're trying to say there about the discussion and its alleged impact on law.

no, the number one reason is an adherence to biblical law and trying to codify it. controlling women is a side effect of biblical doctrine, although u could argue it was a motivation in the creation of the doctrine itself.



im pro choice but in favor of govt funding to bolster adoption and offer alternatives to abortion, im in favor of restrictions on the last available date for abortions and eliminating more late 2nd term abortions, and im mostly neutral to 2nd doc requirements and education of the process as a requirement for getting an abortion.

ive simplified it for a long time as being pro choice and staunchly anti abortion. id attack fertilization clinic access to bolster adoption before i even thought of setting sights on Roe. which id likely leave alone forever. my only real concern is abortion as a use of contraception, which i think should be free nationwide.

as to the last ive thought more and more recently that the fringes of both parties are responsible for pushing abortion way higher on the docket of priority than it has any business being. it should be nothing but a 2nd level priority issue, imo.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 8 2021 11:26am

We live in a secular society, you know the whole separation of church and state thing. Otherwise we would be codifying their eternal sins like rejection of the holy spirit.