I personally would like to see as few abortions as possible being performed. But just as you mentioned in your post, I don't think the government or various religious groups have any right whatsoever to reach into my uterus and dictate how I should decide one of the most personal decisions of my life.
As I wrote in my first post, I think it's only natural for the woman to think of the fetus as her baby. But the difference between a ten-week fetus and a full-term fetus/newborn infant is more than semantics. If a pregnancy is terminated by abortion after ten weeks, I don't see that as a baby being killed. I see that as what would have eventually become a baby, not being born.
Is it really accurate that most people on the right support policies which would guarantee affordable healthcare, quality schools, nutritious food and good housing for children in all low-income families?
Bologna? Do you mean toomuchbaloney? Do try to keep your sausages straight.
After reading your posts here, I don't think you and I have any common ground. While I don't agree with Daisy4RN on a lot of things that she's written in this thread, she's said some things I do agree with. She's also doesn't seem as rigid in her view of the world. Despite her personal convictions, and I respect her right to have them, she seems to have a more realistic and emphathetic view of the world. So despite my disagreeing with a lot of the things she says, it is still possible for me to find common ground with her on this issue.
How do you take a break from what research tells you? This thing about being research-literate isn't something you just turn on and off at will to suit your religious (?) convictions. You either accept that statistics show that women do not have fewer abortions simply because someone bans them, or you stick your head in the sand and deny FACTS. It doesn't matter if you're in the breakroom, or not.
Semantics.... So hypothetically.. if worldwide, 1,000 babies who would not have born were actually born.. and the price paid for that was 1,000,000 dead women. That's a good trade-off?
Why do you keep on pretending that there is any evidence that countries where abortions aren't legal actually result in fewer abortions in those countries, than in countries where abortions are legal?
Care to clarify what this statement means?
To me there's a bit of misogyny lurking in its depths.
I think you're being either quite naive, blind or disingenuous, if you claim that there has never been a desire in society to control women.
I'm sure a desire to control women isn't what motivates each and every person who opposes a woman's right to choose, but you can't pretend that it isn't a factor for some.
Again, show me the evidence that fewer abortions are performed when they are made illegal.
How does that work?
So you support forcing rape victims to give birth to their rapist's child?
So you support forcing a woman carry her pregnancy to term even when it threatens her life?
So you support incest victims being forced to give birth to their own sibling?
If I told you what I think of this, I would likely be banned from this forum until the 23rd century.
I'd assume it would extend to cover all citizens, legal residents and if you want to be a good person you should probably consider to also offer every individual who presents at an ER with an immediately life-threatening condition, care regardless of their legal status.
Physicians, nurses and other healthcare professions in different settings; hospitals, clinics etc. provide the healthcare.
I'll leave the technicalities of how you provide access to affordable healthcare for you guys to decide.
Of course. It's an integral part of women's health/healthcare.
The people who directly and indirectly benefit from it. That would be all of you.
That last sentence sounds unhinged. Beating boys and offering euthanasia??? What on earth are you talking about?
When I said the next generation, I meant exactly that. I was referring to how we socialize boys and girls.
You do realize that I never claimed that anyone is actively teaching anyone to DISrespect women, don't you? You're twisting my words.
What I said was that we should actively teach the next generation to respect women's bodily integrity and autonomy.
There was recently a thread on the yellow side where a female poster asked for advice regarding how to ward off unwanted attention from a male coworker. She received multiple replies, most of them from other women, that she should tell the "amorous" coworker that she was quite happily married and therefore not interested in him.
There are obviously many women out there who've been socialized to believe that it isn't enough to simply say that, I don't want your attention, but who feel it's necessary to use the marriage as a crutch when rejecting the coworker's unwelcome advances.
So when I say the "next generation" I mean just that. You're interpreting my statement through your own filter, and it's distorted by your biases and preconceived notions.
Who has continued the narrative that all men are rapists unless taught otherwise?
I know that I haven't since I don't believe that to be true. Again, I refer you to reflect on how your personal filter affects your interpretation of my statements.
I find this viewpoint quite selfish and as I've already pointed out, it ignores the fact that our world is interconnected and that what happens in the Far East, Europe, South America or Africa, actually has ramifications even in your zip code area.
I don't know if you were active on this board when some of the posters of the "America First" persuasion were experiencing a major Ebola-related panic attack and supported all sorts of draconian and medically unnecessary measures just because they were so afraid?
That's exactly what I expect from myopic me, me, me people who don't look outside their own countries' borders. Why not make sure that money is spent on discovering, manufacturing and distributing vaccines to the countries most plagued by the scary disease, instead of screaming about closing your borders? This is a prime example of why I think that any decent and intelligent person ought to care about healthcare in other countries. So for anyone who asks; what's in it for ME? Now they know.
So the persons you referred to in your first post as "others" in fact includes yourself.
I suspected as much.
Your original statement was this: "Others would argue that the monetary costs of supporting these services to the world population is offering nothing to the healthcare of the US itself. Most often heard in the form of, "Why should I pay for another countries healthcare?".
This is clearly not about being aware that you can't save every person on planet earth, which is a reasonable conclusion to arrive at. Your original statement is clearly transactional in nature. You were arguing that some people don't think paying for healthcare in other countries is worthwhile because there's NOTHING in it FOR THEM. Doesn't have a thing to do with the fact that not all human lives can be saved.
That is so damn cold.
So when a (financially) poor woman with five children in desperation has an illegal UNSAFE abortion because someone saw fit to make access to safe abortions almost impossible or outright banned them, and she dies and leaves the five already alive children without their mom, that was her choice?
(@TMB, you know I don't think of you as a sausage :D :wavey: :inlove:)