I support abortion because I don't think rapists should be allowed to be fathers

[FlyersFan]

I don't think that casting our personal judgements on the OP with our conversational suggestions of "getting professional help" are genuinely helpful. 

I do.
It's not a 'personal' judgement to alert them to the fact they need medical help.
As I said ... it's not an insult ... it's a helpful suggestion.
When I see someone in need of help, I do them no good to ignore it.

[Maxmars]

I do.
It's not a 'personal' judgement to alert them to the fact they need medical help.
As I said ... it's not an insult ... it's a helpful suggestion.
When I see someone in need of help, I do them no good to ignore it.

Thank you for pointing out how I failed to express myself precisely.

It's not the act of suggesting help... it's the litany of personal observations that precede it... they often conceal poison of their own... salt for an open wound... engendering an immediate  defensive (or offensive) direct reaction... cleanly diminishing the good intent... in deference to virtue signaling...

This isn't about you or me specifically, naturally... 

It is not always so... but presuming the OP represents a sincerely derived life-perspective, it merits engagement...

Telling a blind man he is blind and to go get help, is another way of not helping... duty of care satisfied.

Of course, this is clearly not a "we can help" situation... (we're not a "dating" site) and we talk about how the OP reads to them...

And it's not like the OP is being discussed without their participation... leaves room for hope that members can communicate, and even disagree... 

I definitely wouldn't say that the topic author shouldn't seek someone with whom to explore these feelings and perceptions... (Ironically, it might be that he was doing just that.)

[Bootless]

A bit of a strawman, as the law being "binary", in determination of fact, doesn't mean it can't handle more nuanced situations¹. There are clear and well-defined exceptions for life-threatening pregnancy conditions. You are correct that the laws and phrasing vary from state to state, and more work is needed to make things clear for doctors. Even the most strident anti-abortion activist would agree with that, I would think. But that complexity doesn't mean we can't have abortion laws. If you think it does, the analogous strawman argument would be saying that since some killing are in self-defense, and that complicates the determination of fact, we can't have murder laws.


¹ https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/an...-exception

I read that article. You know what it tells me?

Scenario:
Doctor: "Oh crap, she needs an abortion within 3 days or she'll suffer permanent damage. When can I get a pre-operation court hearing so as not to be criminally charged afterward?"

Legal: "Um, lets see ... in 3 weeks."

Doctor, removing his gloves: "That's it. I'm out of here. I'm going into plastic surgery, doing Botox injections."

[UltraBudgie]

Doctor, removing his gloves: "That's it. I'm out of here. I'm going into plastic surgery, doing Botox injections."

It's hard to find fact-based articles on this subject that aren't driving up hysteria on one side or another. While I don't doubt there are problems with the system, I really do think the vast majority of medical professionals want to do the best they can, and the system for the most part¹ enables that. Obviously it's horrible and flawed, as it seems all bureaucratic and especially profit-driven systems are. The flaws and failures are what you hear about, not so much the successes, and where the problems are highlighted, unfortunately it is usually for purposes of agenda. I know you can read past that.


¹ Quite a qualifier, there.

[ANNEE]

 While I don't doubt there are problems with the system,  . . . 

The problem is legislating a woman's body against her choice(s)

It should never have happened.

[UltraBudgie]

My question:  why is it anyone else's business.

No woman should be required to answer to anyone outside herself -- her right to abortion.

Why is anyone allowed to vote on this?  That's pure invasion of autonomy.  

It's sick that this is legislated on.

Imagine a slave owner in the 1800s. "Who are you to tell me what I can do with my slaves? They don't have the competence to take care of themselves; they'd starve without me feeding them. They're not people with rights, they're my property and therefore I am the one who decides about them. Mind your own business, quit interfering with my freedom to do as I want with what is mine. And what do you know about it? They don't even have n****s or slaves where you are. You've got no stake in this."

That is what your argument reminds me of. Except worse, because there were actual laws preventing slaveowners from murdering their slaves. Disgusting. Dehumanizing a child into a lump of cells is just the worst.

[UltraBudgie]

The problem is legislating a woman's body against her choice(s)

It should never have happened.

You know who else get their body's legislated against their choice? Attempted murderers. They are incarcerated.

[BeyondKnowledge]

Thank you for pointing out how I failed to express myself precisely.

It's not the act of suggesting help... it's the litany of personal observations that precede it... they often conceal poison of their own... salt for an open wound... engendering an immediate  defensive (or offensive) direct reaction... cleanly diminishing the good intent... in deference to virtue signaling...

You are saying when suggesting someone needs help, we should not bring up why we would thank they needed help?

To me that seems unhelpful, harsh and cruel. Just stating 'get help' with no explanation leaves the one being replied to confused because of not understanding what they said to need help for. Is the help suggestion because of spelling, grammar, or their failure at understanding how the universe works in general.

'Get help' with no context is confusing at best.

[Maxmars]

Imagine a slave owner in the 1800s. "Who are you to tell me what I can do with my slaves? ...

....

That is what your argument reminds me of. Except worse, because there were actual laws preventing slaveowners from murdering their slaves. Disgusting. Dehumanizing a child into a lump of cells is just the worst.

 

... They don't have the competence to take care of themselves; they'd starve without me feeding them. They're not people with rights, they're my property and therefore I am the one who decides about them. Mind your own business, quit interfering with my freedom to do as I want with what is mine...

Ouch...

Points to the objectification of a human existence... Human as thing.
(ironic since we are now toying with recognizing LLMs as maybe 'feeling' AI people.)

The activist arguments to justify anger about pro-life perspectives often feature such claims...
proving that it is not about the baby (just a thing)... but about the mother.

It's a shame that we had a 'self-perpetuating' male-dominated government... but such things can't last because it's self-defeating.  

It's all a game of society 'catch-up' now...
with many activist hell-bent on spiteful revenge metrics... it's where the social power is.
not really inexcusable considering other groups do it to.

In the need - we can only be witnesses - but we are still witnesses with voices.

[ANNEE]

Imagine a slave owner in the 1800s. "Who are you to tell me what I can do with my slaves? They don't have the competence to take care of themselves; . . .

I don't accept extremism as a valid argument.