Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Other arguments I do not understand
I've heard from some people that those who want to do something about gun violence don't care about victims of other crimes. This is one of the strangest things I've heard. Of course people care about victims of all crimes. Supporting gun control to prevent more victims of gun violence doesn't mean you don't care about other victims. If I support breast cancer research does that mean I don't care about victims of other cancers? Of course not. Similarly, I don't understand those that suggest that gun control regulations won't eliminate the problem so we shouldn't bother. World poverty will never be eradicated so we shouldn't bother helping the poor? Reminds me of that starfish story: you can't save all the starfish washed ashore and your efforts may not matter to all but your efforts do matter to those saved.
Re: Other arguments I do not understand
While we're on the topic of arguments we don't understand...
I don't understand how people promoting a pro-life agenda, to save babies lives, are viewed as being anti-woman or anti health care for women...
I also don't understand, while important to care about any lives lost, the liberal agenda focuses on those lost to gun violence or other types of violence, but does not turn an eye to lives lost in abortions.
As you said...a starfish is a starfish, right? A human is a human.
I fail to understand the argument that a human is a human.
It seems incredibly obvious to me that a forming life with the potential to be a human, which needs a human host to survive, is different from a fully developed baby who is able to survive on its own.
I also don't understand the argument that making abortion illegal will stop abortions. That has worked absolutely NEVER in the history of the world. The only things that stop abortion are things that prevent unwanted pregnancy; education and access to birth control.
I think I can help you with this one.
The pro-life agenda is to deny women access to abortions.
Evidence shows that denying access to abortions does not actually decrease the number of abortions. What it actually does is result in more maternal death and infertility.
Because the pro-life people want to end access to abortion, thus resulting in more death and infertility for women, they are seen as anti-woman and anti-health care for women.
Here is why: from a legal and constitutional standpoint, if you grant an embryo or fetus full personhood rights, you are necessarily turning a pregnant woman into LESS than a full legal person. You are making a law that says the rights of that embryo outweigh and trump the rights of the pregnant woman every time, and that is, by definition, anti-woman.
Back on topic, my favorite anti gun control argument is that we shouldn't have any gun laws because "criminals don't follow laws!"
Well in that case, why bother having a law against murder because a murderer isn't going to follow the law anyway? Might as well make rape legal too, because rapists don't care about the law.
why make anything illegal as far as all that goes. psychos will be psychos
Okay, this legitimately made me lol because no one said anything about this but when you use this argument for gun control people will immediately call you stupid. And actually abortions have increased significantly since birth control came into circulation (actually breast cancer rates have sky rocketed as well, but that's a different subject). Birth control fails, the only way to avoid an "unwanted child/pregnancy" is to not have sex.
And as to the first part of your post it seems incredibly obvious to me that a woman has never given birth to a hippo, or a snake, or a flower, always a human baby. And the arguement your using isn't a new one. The same argument was used for slavery and just about every other major holocaust. Because if you call a human something less than a human (i.e. a black man isn't equal to us/a human, a jew is not equal to us/a human, etc.) It makes it that much easier to kill them.
I agree that the argument is the same, and it's not the best argument for anything. However, it is absolutely true that you can't stop people from having abortions, and you can't eliminate murder. If the argument is "taking away our guns won't stop people from killing people," I would have to say, yes, that's true. The problem is that people keep making that argument as if taking away guns is the definition of gun control, despite the fact that significant reforms can be made to the way we handle the sale of weapons and ammunition that will not take away anyone's rights...or guns. It's not an all or nothing issue, whereas with abortion, it is.
I understand what you're saying about dehumanization making it easier to murder. But a person standing next to me, fully formed, breathing and thinking for themselves, is a human. Anyone who is living outside of my body, or who at least is capable of living outside of my body, is a human. But when it comes to something that is inside of me, who has not developed even the characteristics of a person, who is feeding on the nutrients of my body, changing my body chemistry, who will have to exit my body in a painful and life threatening fashion, is not the same as the person who lives next door.
The real problem is that if you give a fetus the right to life, you take away the rights of the woman who the fetus is essentially feeding off of.
This whole explanation is so sad to me, but I can't say I'm surprised given the culture of death we live in. A child outside of the womb can't survive on it's own either, neither can many people with mental/physically debilitating illnesses. Does that mean it's okay to kill them too. Because as you so "nicely" put it. These people are just feeding off of the people that take care of them. Why do we get to say who lives and how are we able to say that "yes you can live, but you can't"?
Also, I would just like to point out (except rape obviously) that when you knowingly have sex you know there is a chance you could get pregnant. And I am pregnant right now and I have no illusions that motherhood is easy, it is a huge blessing that I am able to carry life inside me, I am not more important than my child. And any mother that thinks that she is and that her baby is just a parasite that is doing all these "awful" things to her body probably shouldn't be a mother, especially if she can so easily kill her child. Pregnancy is not a disease and I'm tired of people referring to it like that. And actually babies to have developed the characteristics of a human have you ever read the week by week through pregnancy that says how your baby is developing this week. By the time most women find out they are pregnant you can tell there is a baby in there.
And I'm very sorry if the bolded above is really how you felt when you were pregnant with the beautiful kiddo in your siggy picture.
Biologically (and nothing else) speaking, life begins when two cells come together and begin multiplying. This is not a debatable issue. Any biologist will tell you that this is the answer to the question. If they are human cells, it's human life...in small form.
The actual debate stems from when the life becomes a person. When does personhood occur?
It is if you're trying to make murder legal...
This is crazy. Sorry. Human cells multiplying - stay human and will be human no matter what. This is biology 101. Also, bio 101 is that "life" is defined as cells multplying into a more developed life form. A group of cells in the womb doesn't have any POTENTIAL to BE a human - it IS a human. I mean, what else could it be? A horse?
The word "host" is used to denote a parastitic relationship in which the parasite cannot survive without its host. And, the parasite - a species all to its own - is not the same species as the host.
In addition, the parasite uses the host for, usually a blood source, to get food. Once it has its fill, it falls off or leaves.
The difference is that a human mother isn't a host and a human baby isn't a parasite. While her body IS feeding the baby and the baby, up to a certain point, needs her to survive, the baby is using her uterus as a place to grow and thrive, develop and strengthen so it can survive on its own outside her.
If it were a parasite, it would need to remain one for its entire life. It can't just be one for 9 months and then cease being one once it's born. Creatures don't change like that. Again, Bio 101.
What you are making is a semantic argument, not a biological one. It's convenient for you to call a baby a parasite so it can be exterminated just like a tick is exterminated.
It takes value away from them. The Nazis took value away from Jews and other minorities in Europe in the same way by calling them rats. When something is deemed less than human, it's easy to kill.
Calling and making people slaves (centuries ago and ones now) takes/took value away from them. It dehumanizes them. It makes them easier to abuse, kill, and own.
user="GeraldoRivera"]Also you are incorrect. Abortion rates have been falling since the 1980s. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-state-of-roe-v-wade-in-9-charts/2012/01/23/gIQAXo6XLQ_gallery.html/
Actually I wasn't, Birth control was legalized in 1965. This graph shows that abortions then sky rocketed. It wasn't until the 1990's that it started decreasing. Also, why would it matter if there were millions of abortions if they aren't bad?
False. Here's a better source of data from an affiliate of Planned Parenthood. They rose steadily since the increased use of birth control and while they have slightly decreased since 1992-1994, they remain at elevated levels as compared with pre BC days. Abortions have increased with increased use of BC. BC makes having sex okay and "safe" - sometimes this is a false sense of security. More pregnancies are occurring now as more people are having sex younger, with more partners, and before serious committed relationships, like marriage, are taking palce. The number of abortions is behaving concurrently.
United States Abortion Statistics
54,559,615 abortions 1973?2011
Reported abortions in the United States, by year
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (a special affiliate to Planned Parenthood), which actively collects the abortion data directly from providers. All numbers reported are voluntary; there are no laws requiring abortionists to report to any national agency the numbers of abortions they perform. 2009-2011 are estimates of 1,212,400 annually.
Um no. I'm pro-life. But there is NO debate over when life begins. Biologically, it begins at conception when cells come together and multiply. Most pro-choicers don't debate this fact.
What they DO debate is when personhood begins.
Pretty sure we just posted the exact same thing. citing the exact same website lol
Restrictions on what I do with my own body: a-ok
Restrictiions on gun ownership: not a-ok
I got it now. That makes complete sense.
Yes, I do believe there is a difference between killing a person and killing an embryo or a zygote.Even if I felt like it was the same as a fully developed and independently surviving person, I don't think anyone should be allowed to live in my body unless I want them there. I think that takes away my personal liberty and freedom.
I'm not sure I would argue that there is a moral difference, because it is up to the individual to determine their morals.
When I was pregnant, I certainly did feel like my child was sucking the life out of me. That's what they do. I love him, and I wanted him. But if for whatever reason that wasn't the case, going through pregnancy and birth, bringing another unwanted child into the world, is not something anyone should have to do...especially when there is an alternative. And there has always been, and will always be, an alternative.
Look, it's not like I'm saying babies are horrible and we should kill them all. I'm saying that in reality, pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting, are all incredibly difficult. Not anyone who can have sex should be a parent. You said it yourself. So if they should not be parents, but get pregnant, they should be forced to have the baby and either be horrible parents, or give the child up to a system that is already overloaded with unwanted children. Because that makes sense.
I'm sorry, I would rather let that individual choose to abort. They know their situation better than I ever will, they know if they are ready or capable of being a parent better than I do.
It's not like you're going to get people to stop having sex.
Do you have any idea how dangerously awful that is for the individual to determine their own morals? Also, every philosopher, wise thinker and whatever throughout the ages from a myriade of centuries, walks of life, and religions would say the EXACT opposite. Research Natural Law.
So, under your ideology, with the individual determining their own morals and every individual doing this, how then, do you say what is the "right" action? What is your standard of measurement? How can you say that it's wrong to not have gun control then? I think it's morally repugnant for you to abort a baby. You think it's morally repugnant for a woman to NOT have the choice to abort a baby. Who is right, morally?
So, what you're saying is that IN SOME instances, killing of innocent beings is okay. Well, my dog is basically a "parasite" (to use your word from PP) in my life...she costs a ton of money, poops the floor sometimes, and runs away every so often. Morally, I think it's okay for my husband to take her in the back yard and shoot her. She's just a dog.
Is this morally wrong? She is a cost, an inconvenience, and a "lesser" life form. So we can end her, right? She's my dog. I can do what I want with her. Right?
I'm guessing that you're going to say that no I cannot kill my dog. That it's wrong to do so. But, I choose my own morals. I am the individual deciding here. I chose to kill her since she is a burden to me. I get to decide. And, it doesn't hurt anybody else (human wise), no one else is affected. It's my choice. I am in charge of her so I get to decide what to do to her.
So, individal morals, huh? What about the guy that says it's okay to kill someone for their religion, race, gender, or ethnicity? This happened you know...in Nazi Germany, Kosovo, Iraq, China, with the Native Americans. When individuals take morality into their own hands, atrocities prevail.
Morality isn't up to interpretation. It is a predetermined set of parameters, which are generally accepted and specifically protected by groups like the UN and others throughout time. It's specific thing slike the Ten Commandments (or other writings not limited to the Torah or Bible) that promote a universal set of behaviors and universally curb others. Things like...not murdering, stealing, raping, lying, cheating...these are called Natural Laws because they are written down but they also appear in peoples' hearts without being told.
Individuals decide what they can live with, and have to decide for themselves whether or not they are behaving in a way which they think is wrong.
Some people do shoot their dog. Would I do it? Would you? Likely not. But someone else can decide that it's not something they think is wrong.
Here's the definition for you. Morals are personal standards, which are different for different people.
morals plural of mor?al (Noun)
I can play dictionary book worm too. Actually, morals are pieces which make up a whole of something called morality. Morality is defined as:
mo?ral?i?ty
/m?'r?l???ti, m?-/ Sh
I see what you're saying and this does make sense. However, I have also seen plenty of living wills and health care directives that treat the woman and her baby as equals whenever medically possible.
It isn't an either/or scenario as you are making it out to be. It CAN be both.
Do you think if a woman has taken it upon herself to have sex/unprotected sex (not talking about rape or incest), that she should be prepared for the biological result of her actions?
And beyond biology, just with human rights. The baby no matter how old is a human. It cannot be anything else, species-wise, so doesn't a life no matter its size deserve some degree of protection?
Whether or not you believed that my word choice was appropriate, I can see that you understand my meaning. People have different beliefs about what is right or wrong.
Abortion obviously is an example of this. Like you said, we have different ideas if I believe not providing abortion services to women is wrong, and you think abortion is wrong.
Is it immoral to have an abortion? Is it immoral to have a child you can't or won't take care of? Which one is worse? What can you live with?
These are the questions that women deal with when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. They have a choice. A difficult, horrible choice to have to make.
Is it right for a woman to have an abortion? That's an individual judgement.
You do not need to accept it, take advantage of it, or condone it. All you need to do is mind your own business, and let women make their own decisions.
What biological result are you talking about, exactly?
A woman who conceives a very much wanted baby, then finds out that the baby has a terrible defect that is incompatible with life, that the baby will live for a few hours in pain and then die, should she be forced to carry this baby to term because, well, she had sex, so this is the punishment for having sex!
A woman who conceives a wanted baby but finds out that due to a sudden or unknown medical condition, continuing the pregnancy will put her life at serious risk -- should she be forced to possibly die because the rights of her fetus supercede her rights?
You are basically saying that the government should take this decision out of the hands of women and patients and instead give it to legislators. Instead of letting their advance directives specify which life should be given precedence, you are in favor of having the government decide that her life should NEVER be given precedence because the fetus is a legal person.
You cannot decide that the fetus is a full legal person without also deciding that the woman is necessarily NOT a full legal person. It simply can't happen under the law.