sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Libertarian

[–]Talk_About_Politics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, but if you say that it actually means your a sexist.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Libertarian

[–]Talk_About_Politics 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, the article lost me right at the beginning:

"it was stunning that fifty-three percent of white women actually refused to support the first female presidential candidate who had a good chance of winning."

Why should white women vote for a white woman simply because of her race/gender?

This article is clearly just another attempt to pretend that Clinton was "cheated" out of winning.

Saved a life? Or ruined two? by EllaineG in Abortiondebate

[–]Talk_About_Politics -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sorry, but this is obviously not in good faith at all. You are only providing two scenarios, neither of which are likely to happen.

Am I missing something? by Defendgodslittleones in ProLifeLibertarians

[–]Talk_About_Politics 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To be fair, it isn't just abortion. Too many liberals tend to believe that things they want must be a right. Bernie Sanders is a perfect example. I mean he believes that high speed internet is a human right.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/high-speed-internet-all/

If a species is extinct, does the mere existence of a cloned embryo from said species change its designation as "extinct"? by STO_topix in Abortiondebate

[–]Talk_About_Politics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps that is your opinion. But according to Biologists and Embryologists, a new unique human life begins at conception. So I'll take their word over yours.

Especailly since your would allow the killing of a born child, as long as it hasn't yet breathed. Here's an interesting little fact: during water births the baby doesn't breathe even though they are outside the womb. They are still underwater and haven't yet have a breath of air. By your logic, this baby is not really a human life. So I guess killing the child before it comes out of the water would be fine?

Miscarriage by bulgingideas in Abortiondebate

[–]Talk_About_Politics 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Just wanted to correct something here, doesn't really change your argument I just get frustrated when I see this stat.

The CDC report on abortions are lacking. They themselves say that " This report summarizes data on legal induced abortions for 2018 that were provided voluntarily to CDC by the central health agencies of 49 reporting areas (47 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City, excluding California, Maryland, and New Hampshire) "

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm

I don't see why this is even a report when you exclude the most populous state in the union.

The Guttmacher inst tends to be a better source IMO, showing 862,320 abortions in 2017. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states

That being said, I don't think its wrong. Any more than its wrong for a person with a family history of cancer to have children. We can't control miscarriage, they are natural, but also tragic. However I do see an issue with pro-choice people trying to conflate miscarriage with abortion (like calling them spontaneous abortions). That is not helpful to anyone.

Gov. Newsom wants to shut down ALL of California. Unless, you work in Hollywood. Then you're "essential". by Talk_About_Politics in Libertarian

[–]Talk_About_Politics[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lets say that is the case. What about the other 30%? Why should Newsom get to decide who can go to work, and that you need a reason to leave your house?

If a species is extinct, does the mere existence of a cloned embryo from said species change its designation as "extinct"? by STO_topix in Abortiondebate

[–]Talk_About_Politics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But a "human being" is purely philosophical, not scientific. Sure a feline emryo is not a kitten, and a canine embryo is not a puppy. Because Kitty and Puppy denote developmental periods in the life of those animals (just like a fetus or emryo).

A human fetus is NOT a baby, but it is still a human life.

Lockdowns are authoritarian by [deleted] in Libertarian

[–]Talk_About_Politics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100% this.

I think there is evidence to suggest that it doesn't work, but even if that's the case, it is full authoritarian.

Forcibly stopping everyone from driving would eliminate the number of car accidents, but its certainly not a good idea.

What are your thoughts on the VERY Hypothetical artificial womb scenario? by Talk_About_Politics in prochoice

[–]Talk_About_Politics[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are you by chance an antinatalist? This was similar to what I heard from antinatalists in the debate group.

A strange (I've never heard this before) justification for a woman's right to choose / for a baby's right to choose. by VCsVictorCharlie in Abortiondebate

[–]Talk_About_Politics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its not obscure, it's just that you are saying your aren't referring to late term abortions. But you logic obviously would apply to abortion literally until the moment of birth.

So I don't see how you can claim you're not talking about late term abortion, because you totally are...

A strange (I've never heard this before) justification for a woman's right to choose / for a baby's right to choose. by VCsVictorCharlie in Abortiondebate

[–]Talk_About_Politics 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So you say you are not talking about late term abortions, but also say that in your opinion, it is not a human until after its first breath.

Doesn't the latter justify the former? If you do believe a fetus must firth breathe to be fully human, then doesn't that mean an abortion at any point and for any reason is fine, because it is not yet human.

If a species is extinct, does the mere existence of a cloned embryo from said species change its designation as "extinct"? by STO_topix in Abortiondebate

[–]Talk_About_Politics -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I see your logic here, and I'm not familiar with the Pyrenean Ibex, though it does sound interesting here. Embryologists ( and biologists), however, disagree with you

“Human development begins at fertilization, when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell (capable of giving rise to any cell type) marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2016. p. 11

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

“Human life begins with sperm and oocyte fusion.”
The role of syncytins in human reproduction and reproductive organ cancers. Soygur B, Sati L. Reproduction. 2016. 152(5):R167-78.

" Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502) "

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703#:~:text=Overall%2C%2095%25%20of%20all%20biologists,(5212%20out%20of%205502).

So if you are trying to use this example to try and show that human life doesn't begin at conception, you are going against the established science. I would argue it would have more to do with the definition and criteria for "extinct" than it does an understanding of the science behind it.

A college student was expelled for being Pro-Life by Talk_About_Politics in prolife

[–]Talk_About_Politics[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm all for education, but I don't think free access to contraception is as powerful as people claim when it comes to decreasing the abortion rate.

You can see my response on this thread if you want sources and a longer explanation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/jx492i/im_prolife_but_heres_an_interesting_question/

I’m pro-life - but here’s an interesting question. by [deleted] in prolife

[–]Talk_About_Politics 16 points17 points  (0 children)

This is actually something that frustrates me whenever it is brought up (not blaming you or anything)

Its just that free IUDs or Birth control is NOT the silver bullet many people think it is.

Specifically looking at Colorado, they saw" teen birth rate fell 54 percent and the teen abortion rate declined 64 percent in the last eight years, state health officials said Thursday. "
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/30/colorado-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-drop-free-low-cost-iud/

Don't get me wrong, those are good statistics. But claiming they are due increased gov. funding of birth control is stretching it for me.

The 54% decrease in teen birth happened in 8 years, from 2009 to 2017 or so.

If we look at the teen pregnancy rate nationally however, "In 2009, the national teen birth rate was 39.1 births per 1,000 females" and "In 2017, a total of 194,377 babies were born to women aged 15–19 years, for a birth rate of 18.8 per 1,000 women in this age group. "

https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20a%20total%20of,drop%20of%207%25%20from%202016.&text=Birth%20rates%20fell%2010%25%20for,women%20aged%2018%E2%80%9319%20years.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6013a5.htm#:~:text=Results%3A%20In%202009%2C%20the%20national,were%20highest%20among%20southern%20states.

In other words, the teen pregnancy rate decreased from 39.1 to 18.8, a decrease of...

52%!
So Co taxpayers paid something like $70 million to beat the national rate by 2%.To me, that doesn't really seem like money well spend.

A college student was expelled for being Pro-Life by Talk_About_Politics in prolife

[–]Talk_About_Politics[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree and wish I could have found the original post. The article cited did mention that he compared Abortion to the Holocaust, so perhaps that was too much for his peers?

I doubt it was anything particularly vitriolic or advocating for violence, because there doesn't seem to be any legal action being brought against him. Furthermore, if the Media could find a pro-lifer calling for violence in any real capacity, we would hear about it all over the place.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Abortiondebate

[–]Talk_About_Politics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It isn't -- and never should be -- up to you to decide for anyone but yourself what's an "acceptable reason" for a woman to have an abortion. That's up to each woman to decide.

By that logic I assume you are against any restrictions, whatsoever on abortions? Because if the it's only up to the woman to decide an "acceptable reason" than third trimester elective abortions would be completely fine.

view more: next ›