Regardless of where you stand on abortion, making it outright illegal or heavily regulated is not really a realistic option. It will still happen, it will just be unregulated, dangerous, etc., etc.
I wish people put as much energy towards foster care, adoption, etc. as they do towards abortion. People tend to not care what happens to the kid as long as it has to be born, which is the issue.
I'd prefer if abortion didn't need to be an option, and if people were just more responsible, but we have to be realistic about it.
The much better route is to encourage contraceptives, make people aware of the financial burdens, provide better tax credits and maternity leave, and a whole slew of things that would be infinitely more legislatively popular and reasonable when enforced.
I'll probably get downvoted for this here, but its the truth.
I wish people put as much energy towards foster care, adoption, etc. as they do towards abortion.
You mean the Christians who are the largest adoption population in the US? Make a better argument that’s grounded in something other than black pill conjecture.
Regardless of where you stand on abortion, making it outright illegal or heavily regulated is not really a realistic option. It will still happen, it will just be unregulated, dangerous, etc., etc.
Actions have consequences, saying that people will still commit a crime is not a good reason to legalize it.
The much better route is to encourage contraceptives, make people aware of the financial burdens, provide better tax credits and maternity leave, and a whole slew of things that would be infinitely more legislatively popular and reasonable when enforced.
Leftists have been doing this in sex ed for decades with negative success rates, why continue a shitty failed policy developed by legitimate pedophiles? Maternity leave is now so expansive it is a liability economically to any company hiring female employees, which is why many corporations fund abortions….
Are you a far leftist trying to larp? Because these arguments are hilariously bad, like ending cash bail levels of stupid.
No, this was a gimmick from funky statistics, they made comparative studies post roe compared to pre roe and then claimed it was access to contraception. What’s actually changed is the amount of teen marriages, which was fairly common even up to the 90s, and 18 year old wife getting pregnant was listed as a teen pregnancy. Unwed teen pregnancies are actually higher today compared to decades ago.
You mean the Christians who are the largest adoption population in the US? Make a better argument that’s grounded in something other than black pill conjecture.
Christians adopting the most doesn't offset the impact of banning abortion. If you think this is a gotcha, then I'm sorry to inform you that your retardation is terminal.
We already don't have enough people adopting, even among Christians. You think the issue wouldn't be worse if you forced people to carry to term?
Actions have consequences, saying that people will still commit a crime is not a good reason to legalize it.
This isn't a justification. You could use this argument to justify almost anything.
Leftists have been doing this in sex ed for decades with negative success rates
Then why are birth rates lower in poorer countries where it's taught even where abortions aren't generally available?
You actually don't have any arguments with real merit lmao.
Imagine thinking someone is far left because they know that trying to make abortion illegal is actually braindead retarded, regardless of whether you like abortion happening or not.
We already don't have enough people adopting, even among Christians. You think the issue wouldn't be worse if you forced people to carry to term?
Right because the issue was worse when abortion was illegal up till the 70s? When did single mothers skyrocket again?
This isn't a justification. You could use this argument to justify almost anything.
You don’t have an argument for why abortion should be legal. Murder is murder.
Then why are birth rates lower in poorer countries where it's taught even where abortions aren't generally available?
Looks at teen birth rates in California, looks at 60 million plus abortions in the us since Roe, looks at single parent rates in US. Yeah… that “method” is totally working! Notice how you couldn’t make a case for it being successful in the US and instantly had to pretend poorer countries teach safe sex and not rape condoms.
Regardless of where you stand on murder, making it outright illegal or heavily regulated is not really a realistic option. It will still happen, it will just be unregulated, dangerous, etc., etc.
I don't want to be too blunt but this argument never made sense to me.
One of the reasons I think most people are skittish on blanket abortion bans is that the moral status of a ball of cells isn't settled. People treating chemical pregnancies like losing a born child is weird. The Bible says you are a person when you are conceived, but it's difficult to say what that refers to. When the fetus has organs? Yes definitely.
Personally I would counsel against abortions for any stage, but I find it hard to make a judgment on other people because of those questions.
Attempting to change an argument with a word that's morally loaded and doesn't apply to the argument in reality doesn't really work in your favor.
I don't care about the moral argument.
Making it illegal is a net negative for society, not even because of bodily autonomy.
It just means people go back to back ally abortion clinics, you have unregulated "doctors" working in unsanitary conditions, people are forced to have kids which destroys their finances and likely careers, etc., etc.
Attempting to change an argument with a word that's morally loaded and doesn't apply to the argument in reality doesn't really work in your favor.
I'm speaking about the perspective of people who actually believe it is murder. Trying to get them to go along with abortion "because people will do it anyway" is a nonstarter.
Obviously for someone like you who doesn't think you're killing anyone, it's totally fine to be safe, legal, and rare (as Hillary famously proposed).
But that's why I think we should put more effort on addressing the reasons people get abortions. Not being able to afford a kid, it interfering with their career, etc., etc. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong here, there were surveys at abortion clinics showing that a significant portion got them for reasons other than simply not wanting a kid.
Do you think its valid to argue that those cases shouldn't be addressed first, considering they're infinitely more electorally popular and reasonable?
My arguments aren't based on the morality of it; I'd rather it didn't happen. If people want to argue morality, there's a lot going against a ban because of the downstream outcomes as well.
Regardless of where you stand on abortion, making it outright illegal or heavily regulated is not really a realistic option. It will still happen, it will just be unregulated, dangerous, etc., etc.
I wish people put as much energy towards foster care, adoption, etc. as they do towards abortion. People tend to not care what happens to the kid as long as it has to be born, which is the issue.
I'd prefer if abortion didn't need to be an option, and if people were just more responsible, but we have to be realistic about it.
The much better route is to encourage contraceptives, make people aware of the financial burdens, provide better tax credits and maternity leave, and a whole slew of things that would be infinitely more legislatively popular and reasonable when enforced.
I'll probably get downvoted for this here, but its the truth.
You mean the Christians who are the largest adoption population in the US? Make a better argument that’s grounded in something other than black pill conjecture.
Actions have consequences, saying that people will still commit a crime is not a good reason to legalize it.
Leftists have been doing this in sex ed for decades with negative success rates, why continue a shitty failed policy developed by legitimate pedophiles? Maternity leave is now so expansive it is a liability economically to any company hiring female employees, which is why many corporations fund abortions….
Are you a far leftist trying to larp? Because these arguments are hilariously bad, like ending cash bail levels of stupid.
No, this was a gimmick from funky statistics, they made comparative studies post roe compared to pre roe and then claimed it was access to contraception. What’s actually changed is the amount of teen marriages, which was fairly common even up to the 90s, and 18 year old wife getting pregnant was listed as a teen pregnancy. Unwed teen pregnancies are actually higher today compared to decades ago.
Christians adopting the most doesn't offset the impact of banning abortion. If you think this is a gotcha, then I'm sorry to inform you that your retardation is terminal.
We already don't have enough people adopting, even among Christians. You think the issue wouldn't be worse if you forced people to carry to term?
This isn't a justification. You could use this argument to justify almost anything.
Then why are birth rates lower in poorer countries where it's taught even where abortions aren't generally available?
You actually don't have any arguments with real merit lmao.
Imagine thinking someone is far left because they know that trying to make abortion illegal is actually braindead retarded, regardless of whether you like abortion happening or not.
Right because the issue was worse when abortion was illegal up till the 70s? When did single mothers skyrocket again?
You don’t have an argument for why abortion should be legal. Murder is murder.
Looks at teen birth rates in California, looks at 60 million plus abortions in the us since Roe, looks at single parent rates in US. Yeah… that “method” is totally working! Notice how you couldn’t make a case for it being successful in the US and instantly had to pretend poorer countries teach safe sex and not rape condoms.
Abortion is a distraction of much larger issues in the country
This has been the case for 20 or 30 years now.
Its been a tool used to draw votes, and that's it.
I don't want to be too blunt but this argument never made sense to me.
One of the reasons I think most people are skittish on blanket abortion bans is that the moral status of a ball of cells isn't settled. People treating chemical pregnancies like losing a born child is weird. The Bible says you are a person when you are conceived, but it's difficult to say what that refers to. When the fetus has organs? Yes definitely.
Personally I would counsel against abortions for any stage, but I find it hard to make a judgment on other people because of those questions.
Attempting to change an argument with a word that's morally loaded and doesn't apply to the argument in reality doesn't really work in your favor.
I don't care about the moral argument.
Making it illegal is a net negative for society, not even because of bodily autonomy.
It just means people go back to back ally abortion clinics, you have unregulated "doctors" working in unsanitary conditions, people are forced to have kids which destroys their finances and likely careers, etc., etc.
I'm speaking about the perspective of people who actually believe it is murder. Trying to get them to go along with abortion "because people will do it anyway" is a nonstarter.
Obviously for someone like you who doesn't think you're killing anyone, it's totally fine to be safe, legal, and rare (as Hillary famously proposed).
I'm not foolish enough to think its rare.
But that's why I think we should put more effort on addressing the reasons people get abortions. Not being able to afford a kid, it interfering with their career, etc., etc. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong here, there were surveys at abortion clinics showing that a significant portion got them for reasons other than simply not wanting a kid.
Do you think its valid to argue that those cases shouldn't be addressed first, considering they're infinitely more electorally popular and reasonable?
My arguments aren't based on the morality of it; I'd rather it didn't happen. If people want to argue morality, there's a lot going against a ban because of the downstream outcomes as well.