HOME | DD
timsplosion — The Required Test
#abortion #alabama #anatomy #comic #congressman #death #faith #femaleanatomy #feminism #feminist #funny #gop #grimreaper #healthcare #nervous #political #politics #prochoice #republicans #senator #sexeducation #sexualhealth #sweat #sweating #womensrights #reproductiverights #uspolitics #reproductivehealth #healthcareisaright
Published: 2019-05-17 23:25:12 +0000 UTC; Views: 8179; Favourites: 51; Downloads: 4
Redirect to original
Description
There would be a lot fewer attempts to legislate women's bodies if you had to know anything about them before you could do so.Related content
Comments: 69
I don't understand why you think you're hurt by other people's abortions. You lose nothing by a woman on the other side of the country making a decision based on her situation. Why the hell do you think you're the one under attack?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Using taxpayers money from Medicaid, Planned Parenthood and Affordable Care Act to fund abortion increase healthcare insurance. Doctors don't work for free, electricity don't come from air. Someone has to pay for it.
If I lose nothing, then i don't care about abortion. If I am not paying for it directly or indirectly then i don't care when or where there is abortion, her body her choice. But when I am forced to pay for it, then now I have interest in decreasing the amount of abortion procedures.
So I ask again: "Why my and other human being life does not matter? Why my, other women, other men time, health, sweat and life are expendale?"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your question is based on a false premise. No one is saying that every other human being's life is somehow meaningless because some women want to do what's right for them. You accuse me of strawmanning, but then your question assumes some puffed up case that I'm not even making.
If your argument is basically "why do I pay taxes", maybe you should be making that argument, instead of going "MY LIFE IS RENDERED EXPENDABLE BECAUSE A WOMAN DOESN'T WANT TO BE PREGNANT". At least then you'd be making the argument you're actually making. You're arguing against paying tax because you don't like how it's spent. None of this has really been about abortion for you - that's why you bring up "who pays for it" in every other reply. Whereas I don't care who pays for it - the woman, the insurance company, a charity, the government - that's all secondary to me and when we're focused in on the legality of abortion I don't give a fuck about that. I want people to be able to make the decisions that are right for them, and to be able to save their own life when placed in extreme circumstances.
Make the argument you're actually making. Stop hiding behind other issues because you feel like it gives you a better moral high ground.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Your question is based on a false premise."
You told: there should be fund. I asked why. You told: because women are important. I asked then, using difrent words, is that mean, that other people are less important than women? Now I am waiting for answer.
"You accuse me of strawmanning, but then your question assumes some puffed up case that I'm not even making."
Readers will decide about that.
"If your argument is basically "why do I pay taxes"(...)"
Is not.
"None of this has really been about abortion for you"
I disagree.
"Whereas I don't care who pays for it"
Either you don't pay taxes, or you are rich. Congratulations. I am happy that you can live like that in wealth.
"I want people to be able to make the decisions that are right for them, and to be able to save their own life when placed in extreme circumstances. "
I want the same thing as long as people who make decisions don't put responsibility for them on others.
I don't argue from moral standpoint, I am arguing from practical standpoint.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I don't argue from moral standpoint, I am arguing from practical standpoint."
The concept that one can be an impartial arbiter on this type of question is in and of itself a moral standpoint - or at the very least an ideological one.
Let's look at your base arguments:
- Abortion is not acceptable once the foetus has an independent heartbeat.
- This remains true even in extreme circumstances.
- Those who have a say in abortions are women, their doctors, whoever pays for the procedure.
Your first base point starts from the assumption that at the point a foetus has it's own heartbeat, it can be considered of equal moral value to another human being and therefore termination of the pregnancy is indistinguishable from murder. The beginning of an independent heartbeat is itself a relatively arbitrary point - we could point to when the foetus becomes viable to survive birth, or when brain activity is detected, or when the foetus begins moving, or when the embryo embeds in the uterus lining, or even conception. All and any of those could make equally strong scientific arguments for being the point at which life officially begins. The choice between them is reflective of morality/ideology, not of concrete scientific method. Life is a tricky thing to define.
Your second is an extension of the first - that no prevalence can be given to the mother if the pregnancy puts her life in danger in the final trimester. Both are equal morally, and therefore the only moral choice is to not choose and let nature take it's course.
Your third point provides the only exception to your first two, and is by far the most ideological. Who pays decides, and is based on a highly individualistic perspective. It assumes that members of a society have no responsibility to care for one another, it assumes that it is not part of the purpose of society to care for it's vulnerable, and it assumes that those society cares for cannot expect help if they are not themselves willing or able to pay for it. It also entrenches existing issues of division and injustice in our society - a rich woman would pay for her procedure and continue her education and career, while a poor woman would be forced to continue a pregnancy that only deepens her dependence on the people around her for support. A rich woman would have children as and when she planned, while a poor woman would have no recourse if her birth control failed her. You cannot ignore morality-related outcomes when devising an amoral system because (spoiler alert) no system is amoral. We live in a world where actions have consequences. It's not about attempting to be amoral - it's about balancing the just and the unjust in order to maximise the former and minimise the latter. Abortions, especially late in pregnancy, and especially in pregnancies where the child was wanted, are always a tragedy, but the alternative, to me at least, is unthinkably cruel.
If you'd like to respond to this with a breakdown of my perspective, here's your starting point:
- The woman takes priority until the foetus would survive birth.
- Society should support people to make the best decisions for themselves.
- A decision on terminating a pregnancy is between a woman and her doctor.
- Those making the laws on this issue should either know the subject or defer to medical experts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It looks like we have some problems in understanding with each other.
So let's summarize and clarify.
I am in favor of abortion.
I just wanted to point out, that we can legalize it within any law system by statement: "Abortion should be legal until the time, when there is a proces, that when it stops, we recognize it as death". It can be hearthbeat, it can be death of brain, it can be anything, depending of country.
Of course statement above is about situations, when abortion is done because of socioeconomic concerns or for limiting childbearing. When there are extreme cases, like when pregnacy threatens the life of the mother or child is conceived from rape, then there should be an abortion whenever mother need it.
If by saying "there MUST be an allowance" you mean social acceptance, then I agree. If you mean forced financial support from other citizens, then i disagree.
"- The woman takes priority until the foetus would survive birth."
I agree.
"Society should support people to make the best decisions for themselves."
If this is voluntary, then I agree. If this is forced, then I disagree.
"A decision on terminating a pregnancy is between a woman and her doctor."
Yes, I agree, as long as all consequences apply only for people directly responsible for this (for example mother, father, family).
"Those making the laws on this issue should either know the subject or defer to medical experts."
I agree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When I say "there MUST be an allowance" for third trimester abortion, I just mean that it should be legal at the very least when the mother's life is at risk. Whether it's paid for by general taxation, charity, or insurance companies is a secondary concern, they just need to be able to legally have it if they need it - we can worry about who pays some other time. I keep trying to say, regardless of who pays for it it must be legal, or else women would end up criminalised for saving their own life. It's just really hard to read the stuff you write as pro-choice when it keeps coming across in language more commonly found in pro-birth arguments.
Like you keep bringing up "if you mean forced financial support from other citizens", or "who pays"; you did that whole over-dramatic schpeel about me thinking other people (who I considered to not be involved/relevant in a discussion revolving around the legality of abortion) were worthless as if that was somehow implied in the phrase "the woman matters". All of that feels very libertarian-oriented. It feels like a branch of argument from the "taxation is theft" crowd, which feels like a distraction from the point of "when should abortion be legal" that I thought we were discussing. It's like discussing optimal what animals should be at the zoo and having someone yell about "but where are we going to put the vending machines" - like, valid point, but not the same discussion, can we focus on the thing we're actually talking about. Y'know?
The fact I support universal healthcare funded through general taxation is not the same discussion as whether abortions should be legal. Even in a market system like the US, abortion should be a legal, safe, and accessible option; like chemo, like retrovirals, like insulin. I'll make the case for universal healthcare another day and I'm sure I'll argue with you about that then; but for now, I'm just trying to talk about abortion and the right to choose.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Women who chose abortion are put at greater risk with the legislation because they have to resort more dangerous methods such as coat hangers because they can't have contraceptives or professional aid.
The government has no place in choosing which should die between the pregnant woman and the baby. Is the government not being an accessory to self-inflicted assault and/or murder and with them putting women in positions like this to begin with?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Women who chose abortion are put at greater risk with the legislation because they have to resort more dangerous methods such as coat hangers because they can't have contraceptives or professional aid."
I don't know how your comment above addres my point earlier. You need to clarify this.
And women have contraceptives and professional aid. At least in USA and UK.
"The government has no place in choosing which should die between the pregnant woman and the baby."
Depends. If goverment would not pay for medical procedures or for childcare, then I would aggre. Sadly, it is paying, so people (women) using these reasources are responsible before providers of these reasources. It is like with drug ban. If taxpayers pay for healthcare, then they have a say how you should care for your body, for example they will ban you from using drugs.
"Is the government not being an accessory to self-inflicted assault and/or murder and with them putting women in positions like this to begin with?"
I did not understand what you had meant. Please clarify.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have that organ and I had to google what an endometrium is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I stumbled across the term while making the comic. It's one thing for us common folk to have gaps in our knowledge, but we should expect elected officials to do their homework. I'd put good money on most Alabaman state senators not knowing what endometrium is either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well as long as you're not making important decisions on behalf of all the people living in your nation, it's a non-issue.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Here's a better idea,
only Medically licensed Doctors, Trained as both a pediatrician and gynaecologist
and are a parent with at least one child,
should be allowed to pass laws pertaining to abortions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm with you right up until "they also have to be a parent". Whether you choose to have kids or not doesn't make you automatically more of an expert - that's kinda part of the problem here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's, actually... Genious.
That SHOULD be a fucking requirement
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And the trick is the question changes every time - so you'd have to know everything about the human reproductive system, pregnancy, childbirth, and post-natal care in order to not get caught out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |