There are hundreds of millions of people in the world who have been pregnant and have similar or stronger views against abortion. So clearly having once been pregnant doesn’t in itself provide some insight that would invalidate such a belief.

Actually, I would argue that feminism (and most other identity based world views) in its current manifestation works to further the worst excesses of capitalism, especially economic inequality.

But those people aren't arguing from ignorance.

But many having a belief should make you wonder about any idea that no-one can. When Juan says

Then the failure to understand how and why people think it's ok is his failure. Just as it is if people can't see why many people don't think it's ok.

I'd agree his sex is not relevant.

I assume you have strong moral opinions about ethics of warfare, despite never having participated directly in a war.

And if a veteran told you your position was invalid because of ignorance you would not agree.

Go ahead and correct me if I am wrong.

My argument for or against war wouldn't begin with "I have no idea why..."

Pregnancy sucks, man, and becoming un-pregnant by any means sucks even worse. If you can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't go through with a pregnancy, you're pretty shortsighted.

thats not what juan's argument was. juan wasn't expressing his own opinion about abortion, he was attempting to speculate and condemn a women's thoughts and choice.

a correct analogy was if wookie had a strong opinion that the veteran shouldn't be allowed to feel how he thought.

Well, Juan’s inability to empathize certainly isn’t a byproduct of his sex/gender, and more his ideological beliefs.

Let’s at least get the diagnosis right.

Sure. I was trying to be charitable to juan, that he was merely very shortsighted to not be able to come up with a reason why a woman would want to end a pregnancy. One could reasonable speculate, though, that his real point was that he didn't consider the difficulties of pregnancy and childbirth to be valid reasons to end a pregnancy, despite the fact that it is extremely difficult and painful at best, and a not-too-uncommon worst case scenario is the death of the mother. One could also start to speculate if there are other situations where juan would not consider it a, shall we say, undue burden on someone to do something difficult or to give something up if it would save the lives of other people, or if his concern for making people do things to save the lives of other people begins and ends with women and childbirth.

Sure, and if they don’t believe in abortion nobody will force them to have one.

See how that works?

Nobody has yet to make a convincing argument as to why their beliefs should be imposed on women who do not believe the same thing or the medical community at large.

Don’t believe in abortion? Don’t have one. Need an abortion? There’s a doctor for that.

Zero government intervention is needed for women’s healthcare.

Time and again it’s been shown that banning abortion raises the mortality rates of pregnant women. What about those lives?

They had it coming, obv. Personal responsibility means that women get punished for being bad with no consequences for the men who put them in that situation.

The recent bill to force men to have vasectomies was pretty good trolling, but maybe we should get one introduced that holds men accountable for manslaughter if a woman they impregnated dies during pregnancy, abortion, or childbirth if she wasn't covered by health insurance and if he wasn't ensuring her transportation for prenatal care.

Well, if your goal was to devise a law that would disproportionately target low income brown and black men, I don't think you could do much better.

Should be wildly popular on the right in that case.

How is this not satire?!! Lmfao.

Abortion bans are repeatedly shown to harm the most vulnerable; Women of color and poor women are disproportionately affected by abortion restrictions across the US.

Weird how you didn’t seem to notice how harm is distributed until it affected men... SO WEIRD!

Let’s face it- it’s always the same white men who are constantly making new anti-abortion laws and chipping away at Roe v Wade who also applaud restrictions on food stamps and welfare, deny universal affordable healthcare, refuse to regulate gun ownership, and typically support capital punishment. They don’t give a **** about what happens after forced birth- if those kids go hungry, or get shot up on school or sent back to some “shithole” country; they don’t care about fertility clinics or all the fertilized embryos that get flushed down the drains each year. They don’t give a **** about “personhood” or “souls”. They only care about “life” when it’s implanted in a woman.

Let’s not pretend it isn’t obvious what the real issue is.

If only there were a way that my proposal wouldn't disproportionately target men of color. IF ONLY.

Don't believe in assault rifles, then don't own one.

Don't believe in paying taxes, then don't pay taxes.

Nobody can tell me what gun I can or can't own, right?

Crossnerd wants zero gov intervention in women's healthcare while simultaneously wanting gov to provide free healthcare. Very cool!

Or to put it in a far more accurate manner, Crossnerd doesn't want the government to put restrictions on the healthcare women receive and also wants the government to remove all restrictions that are inherent in the private healthcare business by providing healthcare to everyone. Both result from a fundamental belief that people should have access to healthcare without restrictions imposed by the system, whether those restrictions are due to government regulation or private healthcare insurance.

There are arguments against abortion which, although I disagree with them, I understand that there are genuine beliefs behind them. This is just a cheap potshot in the form of a deceptively constructed straw man.

It's probably worse than that. She probably has the temerity to feel the same way about MEN'S health care!

Well, from what I've read here...I seriously doubt it.

On a related note, I will say this. I am favor of pro-choice, if for no other reason than to stop over population. But I'll admit I have a tough time in my own mind thinking it is fine to kill an unborn baby. I guess I rationalize it as thinking it is not "really" a baby.

Now Luckbox might ask, when do I think it is.....and that's also a tough question. I guess in my mind if it has a heartbeat, that is probably where I'd draw the line.

Sure, accept again, science matters. What lawmakers have come to describe as “heartbeat” bills are not actually heartbeats. It’s fetal pole cardiac activity, which is little more than electrical activity in a rudimentary group of cells approx 3-4mm wide. It’s nowhere near resembling a person, or a cardiovascular system, or a heart- it’s merely an indicator of future viability.

But yeah, the white dudes in congress don’t actually give AF about science or heartbeats or personhood. They’ll use whatever intentionally obfuscating language to play on the emotions of people who don’t know any better, like you, because it works.

heartbeat-bills-get-the-science-of-fetal-heartbeats-all-wrong/

Maybe we just leave women’s health to women and their doctors though...