Roe V Wade has been repealed

[Lacius]

• This will always boil down to the moral issue. If people truly feel abortion = murder, then of course they're going to want the law to be consistent. Murder is bad.

The belief it's murder is a religious belief, and a person's religious rights end where another person's rights begin. Even if a person is religious and thinks abortion is immoral, they should still know that it shouldn't be illegal.

• That then leads to a big domino effect on both sides. If abortion = murder, then the implications of sex change completely. I think it's all contingent on that. People leaning left generally feel this is oppressive; people leaning right feel this is as simple as "murder bad - plz ban"

It doesn't mean both sides are being rational. One side is clearly acting irrationally.

• We all have to concede that we don't know when personhood truly begins - it's still heavily debated among scientists. It's worth talking about, but none of us have the resources to convince the other side. It's still a philosophical point unless Science can get closer to something we can agree on.

We can at least agree that, absent silly religious beliefs, something without a brain is not a person.

• This issue is a giant, juicy apple for politicians. It being divisive is what gives it so much power. There's a reason you're hearing about abortion every election cycle. I just hope more and more people can see it for what it is, politically.

You're hearing about it because the right-wing politicians are taking away abortion access. There's no other reason we are hearing about it.

• Many users on here are talking about this being a slippery slope, where this sets a precedence for more left or right leaning policies on each side of the debate. While you're 100% correct, that holds potentially true for every law, left or right. I feel that makes it a moot point. I see commentators mention this talking point on the left and right a lot. It's the same logic used by anti-maskers.

We know that Roe was literally legal precedent for other rulings (gay marriage, sodomy laws, etc.). And for the issues that didn't use Roe as precedent, they at least took views of the 14th Amendment that were used with Roe that seem to no longer apply. It isn't a slippery slope to discuss these things. Learn how legal precedent works.

 

[Lacius]

im the sickest most deprave fucker you could meet and even I know safe sex and I think the consequences

The right-wing politicians have made it more difficult to access contraceptives and comprehensive sex education.

 

[Lacius]

Replace "pregnant" with "a parent" ... then try it out.

A pregnant person is not necessarily a parent.

 

[MMX]

politics is really the worst of debates, especially this, and on gbatemp which has probably 99% of LGBT people which literally doesn't concern them, since most go onto blind dates in their fursuit.

 

[Valwinz]

The right-wing politicians have made it more difficult to access contraceptives and comprehensive sex education.

lacius you need to stop having sex with random hookers behind gas stations

 

[Lacius]

The same can be said about literally all crimes, they will continue to happen regardless of the law, so as they will just continue to happen, should we then do nothing about them?

How many abortions were carried out because of rape? not even 1%. You cant argue your general cause using exceptions

The difference is we know a world without legal abortion is a world where women die unnecessarily.

No, you should not have a right to end someone else right to life

An embryo is not a person.

 

[Lacius]

lacius you need to stop having sex with random hookers behind gas stations

I'll give you my gas station hooker when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

 

[SyphenFreht]

How many abortions were carried out because of rape? not even 1%. You cant argue your general cause using exceptions

Less than 1% is still 3 million women at most. And of course I can argue based on exceptions, they're what proves the rule. What you can't do is make blanket laws that cover every instance without question. Not everyone is the same, why should everyone be treated that way?

No, you should not have a right to end someone else right to life

It's not a person yet. Moot argument.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Replace "pregnant" with "a parent" ... then try it out.

Are you implying everyone who gets pregnant deserves to be a parent?

 

[appleburger]

The belief it's murder is a religious belief, and a person's religious rights end where another person's rights begin. Even if a person is religious and thinks abortion is immoral, they should still know that it shouldn't be illegal.


It doesn't mean both sides are being rational. One side is clearly acting irrationally.


We can at least agree that, absent silly religious beliefs, something without a brain is not a person.


You're hearing about it because the right-wing politicians are taking away abortion access. There's no other reason we are hearing about it.


We know that Roe was literally legal precedent for other rulings (gay marriage, sodomy laws, etc.). And for the issues that didn't use Roe as precedent, they at least took views of the 14th Amendment that were used with Roe that seem to no longer apply. It isn't a slippery slope to discuss these things. Learn how legal precedent works.

The murder angle isn't purely religious, though the religious camp certainly holds that opinion more often than not. I live deep in the bible belt. I've anecdotally spoken to pro-life atheists and pro-choice Christians.

I know how legal precedent works, and I also know how the Slippery Slope fallacy works. It's independent of political discussion. You are correct that it's a legal precedent - like I said, that applies either way you slice it, left or right. That's what makes the point moot, imo - it always applies logically.

Also to quickly throw out there, I'm pro-choice and agree with just about every post you've made on this topic. I'm throwing my hat in the ring to point out what seems to make either argument stronger or weaker.

 

[Lacius]

wait is this how it works states get to decide? how dare they people voting so democrazy

Whether or not it's left up to a vote is irrelevant to whether or not we're talking about stripping away civil rights and a right to one's own body. I don't think you'd appreciate it if things you want to do to your body were up to the voters.

Hopefully states that have ballot referendums vote for legal abortion, but red states have a habit of striking down ballot measures that don't go the way they want, or rewording the referendum so it goes another way the year after.

The murder angle isn't purely religious

When we're talking about something that doesn't have a brain, then yeah it is.

I know how legal precedent works, and I also know how the Slippery Slope fallacy works.

Then you know none of the points about gay marriage, contraception, sodomy, interracial marriage, etc. are slippery slope arguments. They're very real and very relevant issues in response to today's ruling. Thomas even brought them up.

 

[Hanafuda]

A pregnant person is not necessarily a parent.

An embryo is not a person.

That's just like, your opinion, man.

But most of your posts are.

For example, above, you state that, "right-wing politicians have made it more difficult to access contraceptives." How is that so? I can walk into any 7-11, bar toilet, or grocery store in the country and come out with a pack of rubbers. Girls can get birth control pills prescribed anywhere, no questions asked, and it's usually FREE. I can only assume you mean some conservatives have voted against handing out condoms at school, passing them out to people on the street, putting a condom fountain in the town square or something. Not providing free condoms at taxpayer expense and not forcing contraceptives upon children is not the same as "limiting access."

 

[Dark_Ansem]

wait is this how it works states get to decide? how dare they people voting so democrazy

Because misinformation isn't a thing and Americans are really smart LMAO The only place where referendums work is Ireland, these days.

 

[The Catboy]

This also stop alot of peopl

i guess practice safe sex

Abortions still happen in countries where even a miscarriage results in the death penalty. Abortions happen in areas with strict abortion laws. Abortions happened before Roe V Wade. Abortions are still going to happen. I don’t understand how people don’t realize this and believe that outlawing safe abortions is going to stop abortions.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I don’t understand how people don’t realize this and believe that outlawing safe abortions is going to stop abortions.

"People" are imbeciles.

 

[Lacius]

That's just like, your opinion, man.

It's a fact, by definition. Try again.

For example, above, you state that, "right-wing politicians have made it more difficult to access contraceptives." How is that so? I can walk into any 7-11, bar toilet, or grocery store in the country and come out with a pack of rubbers. Girls can get birth control pills prescribed anywhere, no questions asked, and it's usually FREE. I can only assume you mean some conservatives have voted against handing out condoms at school, passing them out to people on the street, putting a condom fountain in the town square or something. Not providing free condoms at taxpayer expense and not forcing contraceptives upon underaged persons is not the same as "limiting access."

You have right-wing politicians all over the country banning discussion of contraception in sex education. You have right-wing politicians, including the former administration, limiting access to forms of contraception under their health insurance plans; you have conservative courts doing the same thing. You have right-wing politicians outright banning or saying they want to ban certain forms of contraception. You have Thomas outright saying today that legal access to contraception should be relitigated.

With respect, your posts have a tendency to be poorly researched. I shouldn't have to do all the work for you. My recommendation is to fact-check your points instead of going with what just "feels right." The tends to be a big problem on the political right.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

With respect, your posts have a tendency to be poorly researched.

Such a diplomatic way.

 

[Lacius]

Such a diplomatic way.

I don't dislike @Hanafuda.

 

[SyphenFreht]

That's just like, your opinion, man.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/

It's come to a general consensus that an embryo is not considered a person in any form until it at least starts showing characteristics of being a person, generally no sooner than 8 weeks.

For example, above, you state that, "right-wing politicians have made it more difficult to access contraceptives." How is that so? I can walk into any 7-11, bar toilet, or grocery store in the country and come out with a pack of rubbers. Girls can get birth control pills prescribed anywhere, no questions asked, and it's usually FREE. I can only assume you mean some conservatives have voted against handing out condoms at school, passing them out to people on the street, putting a condom fountain in the town square or something. Not providing free condoms at taxpayer expense and not forcing contraceptives upon children is not the same as "limiting access."

Equate that same analogy to gun rights and you'll see the problem.

 

[The Catboy]

"People" are imbeciles.

I wish it could just be that but I think a lot of people really believe the pro-life propaganda and believe that they are “protecting children.” I think a lot of them either don’t care care or realize the harm they are causing. I don’t think people realize that the history leading up to Roe v Wade was a history filled dead bodies in motels, people dying from infections, and people suffering for years with the results of a unprofessional abortion. I don’t think these people realize the lives they are actually threatening. I wish they would though. I wish they would actually care.