Roe V Wade has been repealed

[Dark_Ansem]

Good

Hey look, a Trumptard speaking in mono-syllabe, what a shocking turn of events.

 

[Metal64]

Hey look, a Trumptard speaking in mono-syllabe, what a shocking turn of events.

You look angry about something little friend, are ok? Also, who said that I voted for trump? I am not a north american citizen

 

[Dark_Ansem]

You look angry about something little friend, are ok? Also, who said that I voted for trump? I am not a north american citizen

I didn't say you voted for him, I said you supported him, because you do. Just like you like spreading your stupid conspiracy posts about January 6th.

Also, little friend? Relax boy, there's nothing little about me and most certainly I am not your friend.

 

[Metal64]

Just like you like spreading your stupid conspiracy posts about January 6th.

Conspiracy posts?

Also, little friend? Relax boy, there's nothing little about me and most certainly I am not your friend.

Why did you felt the need to say this? I dont care about your height

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Well most of us aren't cool with taking away someone's rights or repealing laws that dehumanize them, so...

Yes you are

 

[SyphenFreht]

Yes you are

Only for things that aren't technically people

 

[ASSASSIN-Z]

No, you re-read your nonsense and make sense of it.

No, you re-read your nonsense and make sense of it.

Wow. You really are a hard-headed person. You choose not to accept reality.

No matter, the facts still stand. Abortion is NOT constitutional. You want an abortion then go to a state where it's legalized.

 

[Lacius]

No matter, the facts still stand. Abortion is NOT constitutional.

Regardless of whether or not abortion is a constitutional right (like the legal precedent said it was for the last 50 years), everyone should believe it should be. Otherwise, that sets a very dangerous precedent regarding bodily autonomy.

You want an abortion then go to a state where it's legalized.

That's a nearly 900 mile drive (one way) for some. Many people who need an abortion most can't afford it.

Also, whether or not abortion happens to be legal elsewhere is irrelevant to whether or not anti-abortion laws are deplorable violations of bodily autonomy.

 

[NoobletCheese]

I think I understand now why the left started pushing for unrestricted abortion at any term of pregnancy:

1. If they cap abortions at a certain week, that's still a violation of women's autonomy, it's just that the violation would be shifted forward by a few months.

2. Women have no way of proving they were raped, so women could just say they were raped and get an abortion at any term anyway, so there is no point in trying to restrict it.

 

[Lacius]

1. If they cap abortions at a certain week, that's still a violation of women's autonomy, it's just that the violation would be shifted forward by a few months.

A woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy at any time, since anything else would be a violate of bodily autonomy. That is correct. However, a woman's right to bodily autonomy rights only gives her the right to terminate a pregnancy. It arguably doesn't give her the right to end the life of a fetus if it's able to survive outside of her. In other words, if a woman terminates a pregnancy after fetal viability, that's a birth, not an abortion.

2. Women have no way of proving they were raped, so women could just say they were raped and get an abortion at any term anyway, so there is no point in trying to restrict it.

Rape should have nothing to do with whether or not a woman has a right to an abortion, and it has zero to do with whether or not a rape can be proven.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Only for things that aren't technically people

Guess you're not a person also then.

 

[AleronIves]

A state makes a law that violates people's bodily autonomy rights in the name of saving lives.

Am I describing anti-abortion laws, or am I describing mandated kidney donations? If you don't know which one I'm describing, then you have to either accept both or accept neither.

People have already explained to you why your forced kidney donation analogy is flawed, but you haven't listened. A fetus is not the same as a kidney. A kidney is a part of your body, whereas a fetus is an independent organism with its own DNA that is separate from your DNA. The fetus needs the woman's body as a source of energy so that it can grow, but it's not a part of her body. It's only temporarily attached to her body.

 

[NoobletCheese]

A woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy at any time, since anything else would be a violate of bodily autonomy. That is correct. However, a woman's right to bodily autonomy rights only gives her the right to terminate a pregnancy. It arguably doesn't give her the right to end the life of a fetus if it's able to survive outside of her. In other words, if a woman terminates a pregnancy after fetal viability, that's a birth, not an abortion.

Interesting, so you would cap abortions at around 20 weeks due to the baby's viability outside of the womb? What if there was a new technology that could keep them alive outside of the womb at 10 weeks?

Actually now that I think about it, what even is the philosophical basis for thinking that being inside or outside of the womb imbues moral value? Like, if we move the baby outside of the womb at 20 weeks they will still need to live inside an artificial incubator. Whether they are inside an artificial incubator or the mother's natural incubator (womb) doesn't seem all that relevant to the moral value of the baby itself.

 

[Lacius]

People have already explained to you why your forced kidney donation analogy is flawed, but you haven't listened. A fetus is not the same as a kidney. A kidney is a part of your body, whereas a fetus is an independent organism with its own DNA that is separate from your DNA. The fetus needs the woman's body as a source of energy so that it can grow, but it's not a part of her body. It's only temporarily attached to her body.

You don't seem to understand the comparison. Having a kidney forcibly removed is analogous to forcibly being unable to terminate a pregnancy, since they are both matters of bodily autonomy rights. Nobody made the comparison between a "fetus and kidney."

 

[smf]

Sad dodge. But the if baby = _____ person argument, then it could go either way. You may have just let the child who becomes the doctor who cures cancer. It's a pointless thing to bring up.

Right, it could be a mass murderer or the person to cure cancer.

But also, the people you are murdering by giving them the death penalty could have gone on to cure cancer too.

And I think it's fair calling it a baby as "any point of the pregnancy" could be so close to birth so as to be practically indistinguishable from a literal baby.

So you have proposed that babies may be killed if they were incorrectly conceived. I'm not saying you can't have this opinion but you would have to justify it if the burden of proof is on the killer.

Most people support abortions early in pregnancy, but not close to birth. The debate is somewhere round the middle.

It's disingenuous to call a fetus a baby, or someone a killer. You lose all credibility.

 

[smf]

Interesting, so you would cap abortions at around 20 weeks due to the baby's viability outside of the womb? What if there was a new technology that could keep them alive outside of the womb at 10 weeks?

Actually now that I think about it, what even is the philosophical basis for thinking that being inside or outside of the womb imbues moral value? Like, if we move the baby outside of the womb at 20 weeks they will still need to live inside an artificial incubator. Whether they are inside an artificial incubator or the mother's natural incubator (womb) doesn't seem all that relevant to the moral value of the baby itself.

Interesting points, no idea. Pity it's kinda pointless because a bunch of undemocratic idiots banned it.

 

[Lacius]

Interesting, so you would cap abortions at around 20 weeks due to the baby's viability outside of the womb? What if there was a new technology that could keep them alive outside of the womb at 10 weeks?

Good questions. I'd argue that if a woman at around 24 weeks wanted to end a pregnancy, she might have to induce birth instead of having an abortion. All that matters from an autonomy point of view is she can end the pregnancy.

If we end up with some futuristic technology that makes it so fetuses are viable outside the womb at 10 weeks by using an artificial womb, I have no problem with using the artificial womb.

What matters most is the woman's bodily autonomy takes precedence over anything else.

 

[smf]

2. Women have no way of proving they were raped, so women could just say they were raped and get an abortion at any term anyway, so there is no point in trying to restrict it.

The problem with allowing exceptions for rape, is when a woman is so desperate that she tells the police you raped her.
Good luck with that.

 

[smf]

with its own DNA that is separate from your DNA.

So you're saying different DNA is what describes whether something is part of something or not?

How do you describe Chimera? Or cancer? Is cancer part of someones body?

 

[SyphenFreht]

Guess you're not a person also then.

If you say so bud. Just remember, according to the Constitution I have more rights than a fetus.