Politics How does the left get its political mojo back and win power?

[Taylor]

What about the lives of the women lost during birth, or the 14x more women's lives lost when access to abortion is removed?

Is your view consistent for them, or do you compromise and have personal reasoning that the value of their life is diminished?

All lives are valuable. Women losing their lives in an attempt to end another life is just tragic all around.

An estimated 80,000 lives are ended in Australia via abortion each year, we don't lose anywhere near that many in childbirth.

 

[CM86]

All lives are valuable. Women losing their lives in an attempt to end another life is just tragic all around.

An estimated 80,000 lives are ended in Australia via abortion each year, we don't lose anywhere near that many in childbirth.

Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures in existence.
Once access is taken away, the lives lost shoot up alarmingly.

Do you support the increase in deaths, by taking away access to abortion?
Because abortions will always happen.
Or are you OK with that loss of life?

 

[Taylor]

Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures in existence.
Once access is taken away, the lives lost shoot up alarmingly.

Do you support the increase in deaths, by taking away access to abortion?
Because abortions will always happen.
Or are you OK with that loss of life?

Abortion results in the ending of a life. It's not so safe for them.

Removing abortion results in less human lives ending.

 

[cartwright]

Abortion results in the ending of a life. It's not so safe for them.

Removing abortion results in less human lives ending.

how do you think this is an issue for the left to win power?

 

[CM86]

Abortion results in the ending of a life.

In your opinion.

Whereas removing access to safe abortion increases the chance of death by a factor of 14.

Removing abortion results in less human lives ending.

You're not removing abortion, your removing access to safe abortion.
Abortion will always happen.

Do you support the increase in deaths, by taking away access to safe abortion?

 

[Taylor]

how do you think this is an issue for the left to win power?

It's an issue wrapped up so much with a liberation of women that there are drives in the USA to allow it right up to birth - bolstering the idea women's rights but turning up the nose of a large amount of people more moderate on the issue.

It's a risk the left has that by being too far down one track it alienates too much of their middle.

 

[Taylor]

In your opinion.

Whereas removing access to safe abortion increases the chance of death by a factor of 14.


You're not removing abortion, your removing access to safe abortion.
Abortion will always happen.

Do you support the increase in deaths, by taking away access to safe abortion?

There is less human life ended without abortion. Every successful abortion results in at least one life ending.

 

[CM86]

Making safe abortion legal and accessible reduces maternal deaths.
It is safer than childbirth, which has a 14 times higher risk of death in the United States

 

[CM86]

There is less human life ended without abortion. Every successful abortion results in at least one life ending.

Abortion is happening anyway.

Removing access to safe abortion increases the lives lost.

Do you support the increase in deaths, by taking away access to safe abortion?

 

[cartwright]

It's an issue wrapped up so much with a liberation of women that there are drives in the USA to allow it right up to birth - bolstering the idea women's rights but turning up the nose of a large amount of people more moderate on the issue.

It's a risk the left has that by being too far down one track it alienates too much of their middle.

oh boy, are you that warped you can't understand that state laws moved in line with federal laws to protect the women in those states in the event that roe vs wade was overturned. It is not alienating people in the centre - they can rationally understand why some states amended their laws.

 

[Taylor]

Making safe abortion legal and accessible reduces maternal deaths.
It is safer than childbirth, which has a 14 times higher risk of death in the United States

Abortion is happening anyway.

Removing access to safe abortion increases the lives lost.

Do you support the increase in deaths, by taking away access to safe abortion?

I don't think there will be 80,000 lives lost in those seeking abortion as there currently are from abortion in Australia each year.

oh boy, are you that warped you can't understand that state laws moved in line with federal laws to protect the women in those states in the event that roe vs wade was overturned. It is not alienating people in the centre - they can rationally understand why some states amended their laws.

It was signalling to their base for fear that a supreme court would review a decision now that a couple of conservatives were installed on it, which they haven't indicated they are going to do.

I don't expect us to find common ground on this.

I see a human life as being a human life, I don't think it's intellectually honest to be drawing lines of convenience further along in the development. I'm not Empress of Australia, my opinion isn't going to impact anyone else.

 

[CM86]

I don't think there will be 80,000 lives lost in those seeking abortion as there currently are from abortion in Australia each year.

You can't directly respond, because you know it contradicts why you claim to be anti abortion.

If saving lives is your priority, you'd support access to safe abortion methods.

Abortions are always going to happen. You're just arguing for an increased loss of life by removing that access.

It seems that anti abortion is almost always religion based, and involves the belief of souls.

 

[Taylor]

You can't directly respond, because you know it contradicts why you claim to be anti abortion.

If saving lives is your priority, you'd support access to safe abortion methods.

Abortions are always going to happen. You're just arguing for an increased loss of life by removing that access.

It seems that anti abortion is almost always religion based, and involves the belief of souls.

You've missed the massive logical fallacy.

I consider abortion ending a life.

I don't have to support safe abortion under some guise of saving lives because every abortion is intent on ending a life.

If abortion were immediately outlawed there would be less lives lost in the after period. Again, 80,000 lives in Australia ended by abortion each year.

I don't believe in a soul. You'll need to show your working that anti-abortion is religious based.

I think anyone who looks objectively at the human development can't find any other point which that life begins than conception and coupled with a value of life means I can't decide a life is worth less for convenience sake at a later time. I think that cognitive dissonance is quite ugly.

 

[CM86]

You've missed the massive logical fallacy.

I consider abortion ending a life.

I don't have to support safe abortion under some guise of saving lives because every abortion is intent on ending a life.

If abortion were immediately outlawed there would be less lives lost in the after period. Again, 80,000 lives in Australia ended by abortion each year.

I don't believe in a soul. You'll need to show your working that anti-abortion is religious based.

I think anyone who looks objectively at the human development can't find any other point which that life begins than conception and coupled with a value of life means I can't decide a life is worth less for convenience sake at a later time. I think that cognitive dissonance is quite ugly.

You're deliberately ignoring the fact that abortions will always happen.

And so you're arguing to remove access to safe abortion. Which means a higher chance of death.


Your response is to look at the trolley problem and say "well I don't want anyone to die, so might as well kill them all".




Removing access to safe abortion increases the chance of death.
As abortions will continue regardless... you wanting to remove that access will get more people killed.
How do you justify increases in death when arguing you want the access removed because you support life?

 

[Taylor]

You're deliberately ignoring the fact that abortions will always happen.

And so you're arguing to remove access to safe abortion. Which means a higher chance of death.


Your response is to look at the trolley problem and say "well I don't want anyone to die, so might as well kill them all".

View attachment 824143


Removing access to safe abortion increases the chance of death.
As abortions will continue regardless... you wanting to remove that access will get more people killed.
How do you justify increases in death when arguing you want the access removed because you support life?

It's a reduction in lives ended. Most abortions are done for the convenience of the mother, not to save her life.

Medical intervention to save her life in the event of a pregnancy that would kill her is a different story, and a tiny minority of cases.

So it would be far, far less lives lost to not have abortions available as a convenience.

 

[cartwright]

It was signalling to their base for fear that a supreme court would review a decision now that a couple of conservatives were installed on it, which they haven't indicated they are going to do.

Is this your way of saying I was correct? that the state law was amended in line with the federal law.

I don't expect us to find common ground on this.

I see a human life as being a human life, I don't think it's intellectually honest to be drawing lines of convenience further along in the development. I'm not Empress of Australia, my opinion isn't going to impact anyone else.

I don't believe in forced pregnancies or dictating to others their medical decisions, so no we will never agree.

 

[CM86]

It's a reduction in lives ended. Most abortions are done for the convenience of the mother, not to save her life.

Medical intervention to save her life in the event of a pregnancy that would kill her is a different story, and a tiny minority of cases.

So it would be far, far less lives lost to not have abortions available as a convenience.

So you're ok with abortion sometimes, if it saves the woman's life?

So her life is valued more than a fetus?... sometimes.

Child birth is 14 times more likely to kill a woman, than a safe abortion.

Why remove access to safe abortions, if you agree that they're also necessary?

 

[Taylor]

So you're ok with abortion sometimes, if it saves the woman's life?

So her life is valued more than a fetus?... sometimes.

Child birth is 14 times more likely to kill a woman, than a safe abortion.

Why remove access to safe abortions, if you agree that they're also necessary?

There is a huge difference between:
Losing both the mother and child
Losing the child to save the mother
Losing the child so mum can #liveherbestlife

 

[Mr_Nyah]

You can't directly respond, because you know it contradicts why you claim to be anti abortion.

If saving lives is your priority, you'd support access to safe abortion methods.

Abortions are always going to happen. You're just arguing for an increased loss of life by removing that access.

It seems that anti abortion is almost always religion based, and involves the belief of souls.

She is directly responding, the two of you just have fundamentally opposing stances on when life begins. You can see why she thinks safe, legal abortion ends more lives than it saves can't you? You generally post well-considered opinions and I like reading them, but you're being disingenuous here. You're saying more lives are lost because you don't think the unborn count, she is saying more lives are lost because she thinks they do count. That's not being unable to respond because it contradicts her stance, it just reflects that the two of you have different opinions and therefore you both think you're right. You're not going to agree, and you don't have to, but it's not right to accuse her of not directly responding simply because she has a different opinion.

 

[Present Not Past]

Abortion results in the ending of a life. It's not so safe for them.

Removing abortion results in less human lives ending.

I suspect you are not so worried about the loss of human life, rather concerned about imposing your religious views upon other people.

 

[CM86]

She is directly responding, the two of you just have fundamentally opposing stances on when life begins. You can see why she thinks safe, legal abortion ends more lives than it saves can't you? You generally post well-considered opinions and I like reading them, but you're being disingenuous here. You're saying more lives are lost because you don't think the unborn count, she is saying more lives are lost because she thinks they do count. That's not being unable to respond because it contradicts her stance, it just reflects that the two of you have different opinions and therefore you both think you're right. You're not going to agree, and you don't have to, but it's not right to accuse her of not directly responding simply because she has a different opinion.

That is a big part of where we fundamentally disagree.
But in the above case I meant about abortion happening anyway. So removing safe access was going to increase the chance of death.

 

[CM86]

There is a huge difference between:
Losing both the mother and child
Losing the child to save the mother
Losing the child so mum can #liveherbestlife

If you think abortion is ok to save the woman's life... you are subconsciously accepting that a fetus isn't a life equal to a womans.

Which takes us down the path of potential for life not being equal to actual life.

It isn't killing humans. It's an abortion.
And you arguing to remove safe access to abortion is actually arguing to increase the deaths of actual humans.

 

[Taylor]

I suspect you are not so worried about the loss of human life, rather concerned about imposing your religious views upon other people.

You're barking up the wrong tree here.

I'm not religious.

 

[Present Not Past]

If you think abortion is ok to save the woman's life... you are subconsciously accepting that a fetus isn't a life equal to a womans.

Which takes us down the path of potential for life not being equal to actual life.

It isn't killing humans. It's an abortion.
And you arguing to remove safe access to abortion is actually arguing to increase the deaths of actual humans.

If you remove the right for a woman to have a legal abortion (which she is) then you can't have it both ways and say that it's okay to have an abortion if the woman's life is at risk.

 

[Present Not Past]

You're barking up the wrong tree here.

I'm not religious.

So you're just virtue signalling.