I looked at a few of the 'pro-life' entities websites. Not one of them talk about providing care or services AFTER the birth, therefore I conclude 'pro-birth'. Every one of them talked about MONEY. 

I didn't look at them all, the list is extensive and the more I looked the more I was repulsed.

(March 27, 2025 at 4:39 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Can you explain why pre-natal care is not the job of the state, but forced birth is?

Government-mandated maternal leave is favoured by a sizable majority of Americans.

I was unaware that auto insurance companies issue loans.

The numbers of abortions per year pales beside the number of infant/child deaths per year due to malnutrition, disease, etc. This is why you aren't pro-life, but merely pro-birth.

'If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school, you're fucked.' - George Carlin.

Boru

Absolutely; pre-natal care is an act that is going to require the government to take by force resources from one group of citizens and redistribute it to another group of citizens... that is to say, you are actively harming someone else without their consent to help others. 

What's wrong for the state is wrong for the individual, and there is no greater form of "active harm" than the termination of a life. This is no more a "forced birth" position than enforcing murder laws would make you "anti-choice."

----

Perhaps a majority of Americans do support it; I understand this might not apply to our European brothers and sisters and it's where we just have to agree to disagree, but one of the beautiful things about America is that we realized "rule of the majority" (democracy) just means a mob enforcing their will on others and why we established a republic instead, with multiple checks and balances not just on different branches of government but also on the citizenry as well. Institutions like slavery and eugenics (30 states legally practiced it in 1934 and several until the 1970s) were well beloved and supported by Americans... but I don't think that is in itself a good argument in favor of either.

Explain where the money is going to come from - sell bonds, increase tariffs on certain products that cause reproductive harm, stuff like this - and I am 100% on board and think it would be wonderful to see the community care for one another like that. It just cannot come at the expense of other citizens without their consent. 


----

Insurance policies are on a technicality a loan, but that was a poor choice of words on my part.

----

"The number of people killed over the last two centuries in the name of secular ideologies has dwarfed by magnitudes those killed in the name of religion, so you aren't anti-theist you are just pro-execution of civilians."

Do these fallacies get us anywhere?

-----

(March 27, 2025 at 7:53 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(March 27, 2025 at 2:17 am)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Doubling down on dehumanizing rhetoric sure seems like a bold strategy, let's see if it works for them...

It's not rhetoric, you need to look the word up, as I am dubious it means what you think it does.

Alright, let's look it up together...




Now can you put together a coherent argument as to how using the phrase, "microscopic clump of insentient cells" as justification to not consider them human and then stating that their humanity is "empty rhetoric" isn't an act of denying qualities of their humanity?

(March 27, 2025 at 3:52 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: What's wrong for the state is wrong for the individual, and there is no greater form of "active harm" than the termination of a life.

Are you a vegetarian?

(March 27, 2025 at 3:52 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Absolutely; pre-natal care is an act that is going to require the government to take by force resources from one group of citizens and redistribute it to another group of citizens... that is to say, you are actively harming someone else without their consent to help others
-----

No because these people also had prenatal care and this is the way they are giving it back.

You agree to be part of society by being in society thus you agree as condition of that to be taxed you have a say in what that money goes to but government has a totally legitimate right to tax and to tax to provide aid vulnerable if you don't like that go live in the wilderness or move to a country with no taxes.

Quote:What's wrong for the state is wrong for the individual, and there is no greater form of "active harm" than the termination of a life.

The  individual has the right to bodily autonomy (reproductive autonomy ) and the state has no business interfering with this and no the loss of bodily autonomy is a worst harm then death

(March 27, 2025 at 4:34 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(March 27, 2025 at 3:52 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: What's wrong for the state is wrong for the individual, and there is no greater form of "active harm" than the termination of a life.

Are you a vegetarian?

Nope.

(March 27, 2025 at 4:44 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(March 27, 2025 at 3:52 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Absolutely; pre-natal care is an act that is going to require the government to take by force resources from one group of citizens and redistribute it to another group of citizens... that is to say, you are actively harming someone else without their consent to help others
-----

No because these people also had prenatal care and this is the way they are giving it back.

"These people" - define them, specifically, who "these people" are.

Quote:Now can you put together a coherent argument as to how using the phrase, "microscopic clump of insentient cells" as justification to not consider them human and then stating that their humanity is "empty rhetoric" isn't an act of denying qualities of their humanity?

Saying something isn't developed enough to be regarded as a full human being is not an act of dehumanization. At best you can say they are a potential human