> So in practice access to it is not always that easy.
Understood, but the solution cannot be "allow prescription drugs to be sold online".
If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution.
Understood, but the solution cannot be "allow prescription drugs to be sold online".
If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution.
Indeed, access must be made easy. Abortion, through a pill or otherwise, should be accessible anywhere, freely, and any medical record should be kept absolutely secret, including from the family, especially if she’s underage.
I don’t think that’s the direction they’re headed though. I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible.
That is my point. If access is not easy, selling prescription drugs to anonymous buyers is not the solution - access must be made easy.
> I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible.
I don't think so. No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being. That choice must be totally theirs to make, not the states.
I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action.
I feel you. But that right not to kill, conflicts with the autonomy of women. Which is more important?
> I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action.
France, and many other countries, makes it a crime (misdemeanour I think?) not to help people. If I see someone about to die, and I could prevent that, and I don’t, then I could go to jail.
This is textbook compelled action, and I fully condone it. If you don’t help someone from immediate danger you’re trash, and you should pay the consequences.
The right to not kill, obviously. What kind of question is this? You want to judge someone for not being (in their minds) a murderer instead of a controller-of-other-people?
> This is textbook compelled action, and I fully condone it. If you don’t help someone from immediate danger you’re trash, and you should pay the consequences.
Sure, but we aren't talking about immediate danger. All those countries you list don't compel you to help someone who is in no immediate danger.
(Now this is assuming an actual increase in late(er) abortions: I believe I have seen evidence that increased availability tend to lead to earlier abortions, not to mention safer. And we need to couple all that with regular contraceptives and sex education, so unwanted pregnancies don’t happen that often in the first place.)
This way it could be certified how far the pregnancy is.
This feels too broad. What modern government doesn't compel action?
The only way is to make access easy. If you make it hard, then demand for black market drugs will drive supply. Which in turn would drive a repressive machine. Sites blocked, people convicted and so on.
I don't know why anti-abortion activists are unable to understand it. The only working hypothesis they are actively resist any understanding. A dogmatic worldview can lead to such behavior.
The pro-lifers don't have a monopoly on stupid people - see above where a pro-choicer is arguing that abortion 1 day before delivery should be legal.
Tu quoque[1]
There are two parties in this argument; you appear to belong to one party in this argument.
1. You propose that the other party in an argument are stupid people.
2. I point out that both parties are demonstrating an inability to reason.
3. You now claim that lack of reasoning from your party does not make the other party's argument stronger.
4. You completely missed my point that lack of reasoning from your party does not make your argument stronger.
Your link is frequently posted by people who have no wish to argue rationally. At this point, it's almost like an indicator for a troll :-/
Argue rationally about what? I invite you to stop for a moment, reread our converstaion while asking a question: what about are we supposedly arguing. There was no rational arguments, you've changed topic from peculiarities of anti-abortion mind works to peculiarities of pro-abortion minds, which I'm not interested in, how you can imagine. It is not a rational debate, it is a rhetorical trick to lure me into a discussion I don't want to be a part of.
> Your link is frequently posted by people who have no wish to argue rationally.
I suppose it was LLM who told you that? I personally never saw that link posted. In these situations people mostly invoke "whataboutism", but I just thought it was not right, before we established beyond reasonable doubt that you are fighting a political debate. I mean, we see demagogy used, check. But your motives are still not clear enough to claim with certainty that you are caught up in political partisanship and it is the reason behind your behavior.
My reply (with evidence, btw, see poster upthread) is that both parties are stupid.
I am obviously not on any one side of this issue (see all my other replies); you obviously are on one side of this issue.
After all, while you call the pro-lifers "anti-abortion", you aren't calling the pro-choices "anti-life", are you? There's a reason all the rest of us have settled on "pro-*", and that's because we are respecting the arguments being made.
You are merely slinging mud. After all, which sane person can really be proud of saying things like this:
> I mean, we see demagogy used, check.
> anti-abortion
> you are caught up in political partisanship
> It is not a rational debate, it is a rhetorical trick
(It's Not X, It's Y - huh, where do we usually see that?)
> unable to understand
> A dogmatic worldview can lead to such behavior.
Did you notice that you entire argument is based around calling people names and/or attributing malice intent to their position?
You didn't even try to make an argument. If I was you, I'd be too ashamed to even post here...
Oh, and finally...
> I suppose it was LLM who told you that?
If it makes you feel any better about yourself, then sure. Believe that.
It is your interpretation of it. My proposed explanation for their behavior is not stupidity, but dogmatism of their worldview.
> I am obviously not on any one side of this issue
It doesn't seem obvious for me at all. You are talking emotionally, trying to trigger my emotions with all kinds of tricks. I infer that you are emotionally invested into the topic.
> After all, while you call the pro-lifers "anti-abortion", you aren't calling the pro-choices "anti-life", are you?
Yes. The problem is with abortions. And "pro-lifers" if you look at them closely, are not fighting for life, they are fighting against abortion. They do not fight against wars, against anti-vaccine people, they do not fight about automobiles. There is a lot of opportunities to fight for life, but they fight against abortions, which is not even close to a top cause of deaths among humans.
They name themselves "pro-life" but it is a sneaky way to frame a discourse.
> You are merely slinging mud.
I'm asking for alternative explanations for anti-abortion activists behavior. Anything beyond dogmatism would be welcome. You are talking about me instead.
> Did you notice that you entire argument is based around calling people names and/or attributing malice intent to their position?
I do not attribute malice. Though I allow myself to express opinions about what is going on in their head, but it is the whole premise of it. I'm interested in what is going on in their heads. I have one explanation, you fail to provide another.
> You didn't even try to make an argument.
You don't seem to be interested about my arguments. You never asked about my reasoning that allows me to jump from the observed behavior to dogmatism. So why would I spend my breath explaining you things that you are not interested in?
> If it makes you feel any better about yourself, then sure. Believe that.
It is not about me, it is about you. I'm interested in what is going on in minds of others, and I don't see any other explanation for you claim than LLM. You see, I've learned about tu quoque specifically for that post. I felt that "whataboutism" is something close to what you did, but not exactly that, so I visited wikipedia and looked around to find this article. And then you state that you see it all the time. I'm very interested in rhetoric tricks, if I noticed a link to that article before, I'd remember it. But I don't.
But you somehow generated the claim that this link used all the time. How?
I can agree that I was not too polite, I should have asked you, where you've learned that, instead of voicing my hypothesis, but still I've asked. And I ask again. But you never answer questions, so I shouldn't hope for an answer, should I?
Much better than--let's say--getting an MRI.
Looks like this thread has gotten the attention of weird activists that want to find injustice everywhere and jump to conclusion--as long as the conclusion is women oppressed and censored.