[tekknik]

It seems like most of the problems with abortions are seeking one when you want one and don’t need one and also live in a state that outlaws them. In fact recently I read an article where the Drs refused a medically necessary abortion and even the judge said they were cleared given the situation.

when will people stop being controlling and learn there’s two sides to this?

[consteval]

Because there aren't actually two sides to this, because even an anti-abortion stance doesn't save lives in the long run.

Also, yeah duh Doctors are scared. That's called a "chilling effect", and it's 100% intentional by the legislature.

Most "pro-life" politicians are completely anti-abortion, including in extreme cases such as rape. They're also almost always anti-contraception, which is hypocritical but also obvious.

[tekknik]

> Because there aren't actually two sides to this, because even an anti-abortion stance doesn't save lives in the long run.

No really there is just two sides, wanting to kill an unborn child and wanting to protect it.

> Also, yeah duh Doctors are scared. That's called a "chilling effect", and it's 100% intentional by the legislature.

You missed the point. Given the laws they were authorized to perform an abortion. They chose not to do it to make a point. If they were honoring their oath they’d do what’s necessary and be judged later as their oath requires.

> Most "pro-life" politicians are completely anti-abortion, including in extreme cases such as rape.

All are. How about we solve rape instead of using it as an excuse to kill unborn children?

> They're also almost always anti-contraception, which is hypocritical but also obvious.

Citations needed. Some are sure, but you’re conflating an anti abortion stance with religion which is flawed.

[consteval]

> wanting to kill an unborn child and wanting to protect it

As I've already stated, a pro-life position doesn't actually save any lives in the long run. It actually costs them. The so-called "unborn children" will die no matter what. Abortions happen all around the world, including in undeveloped countries where they're extremely dangerous. Banning abortions just means the "unborn children" still die, but now also some women die who wouldn't have before.

As such there does not exist such "pro-life" position. Rather it is made up for moral leverage. The reality is such a position, if anything, costs more lives. The correct terms are anti-choice and pro-choice. The "life" or "protection" arguments are emotional and moral manipulation.

> You missed the point

No, YOU missed the point. If you don't understand what a chilling effect is than take a class on law and come back. Again, 100% intentional, 100% predictable. Should not be shocking, unless you aren't aware of those affects.

> solve rape

Grand idea, right after all the homeless people get homes and all the murderers become saints. Don't be stupid. We need real solutions, not whatever delusions you're talking about. I know you know that what you're suggesting is not possible - so why be dishonest and suggest it? I have very little patience for those who choose to play stupid.

Rape will exist so long as humanity will exist. The solution to solving rape is nuclear warfare. We both know this to be the case, so don't bullshit me.

> you’re conflating an anti abortion stance with religion which is flawed

Once again with the playing stupid. You do yourself no favors with such arguments.

I'm not "conflating" anything - I'm correlating them. Because they ARE correlated. I don't think a soul in America could possibly argue otherwise. But, surprise surprise, the brigade of "know nothing" type argumentative amateurs will pull up and pretend we live in an alternate reality where this is not the case.

[tekknik]

All you’ve done here is dismiss a moral perspective. It does not even honor a response.

[consteval]

The only arguments against abortion are ones of morality. They lean heavily into religion, and when they don't, they focus on "saving lives".

By dismantling the moral perspective as incorrect, because it is, I dismantle the entire anti-choice landscape. Which is really the trouble with moral arguments to begin with.

There CAN be other arguments here. Arguments of personhood. But nobody does those, because those require more thinking. The supreme court certainly didn't. Fetuses aren't considered people, and yet they are granted one (1) right purely to satisfy the anti-choice crowd.