Roe V Wade has been repealed

[Deleted member 575334]

1/2. Children should not be seen as a consequence or punishment, and punishing someone by forcing them to have a child will only lead to resentment for that child. There is a strong argument to be made that conservatives hate their children based on how much they cling to this argument, which makes me feel bad for their kids. It's damaging to children to grow up in a home like that, but that's what conservatives in this country want.

3. Multiple states have already removed their rape and medical exemptions in preparation for this. The idea is absolutely to punish. You were raped? Well, look into the face of your rapist every day for the rest of your life. You life is in danger due to pregnancy complications? Well, fucking die then. Then they call themselves "pro life".

This issue in America is about control and punishment, nothing more and nothing less. It's not about the lives of children or they wouldn't all claim that children of unemployed parents don't deserve food or healthcare, they're literally voting against school lunch programs right now. They're garbage and a disease in this country. You might be able to have a reasonable conversation about this, but they are not. They proclaim anyone pro choice to be a baby murderer while patting themselves on the back for starving children, sending parents to prison for desperately leaving their kids at a McDonald's play place while they go to a job interview, striking down any after school programs that let parents get in those extra couple hours a day that add up to a full days work, their goal is to destroy the working class and this is part of it. If you aren't forced to have the child then you can't be put into these situations.

I have to add after your reply that With point 1/2 I didnt meant it as a punishment/consequence. People of course deside when or what or with who they have sex.

Point 3: Yes i have been raped (by a other guy) when i was 8. So yeah there is that. Also. I did note that i am a guy. (Idk if you read that but. if you didnt here you go.) Added: I know rapist are dealing with a lot of stuff in their past. I cant imagine someone raping out of nowhere unless that person is really mentally ill.

But still, I dont get the point why removed the right to abortion. if what you are saying is true and its only about control and punishment. Then why did they created in the first place? We are all humans after all.

 

[SyphenFreht]

I think you're right that the vast majority of the wave against abortion is coming from Right wing Conservative Christians, without a doubt. The thing is, if we want to make our position absolutely clear, we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge that there is a non-religious argument to be made, and while that group people making those arguments is smaller, and not the driving force behind the politics, I don't want to give those on that side of the argument the opportunity to call us out on using fallacious arguments or making assumptions about the other side.


I can see how you got there, but I think it's more specifically a philosophical point. Now, people's philosophy can obviously drive very strong emotions, but the argument can be made without an appeal to emotion. The current consensus is that most people agree "killing" is bad - that's easy; the hard part is determining when personhood is present, which is a requirement for killing.

I agree with @Lacius that without a brain it doesn't seem reasonable to assume personhood could possibly be present. That's consistent with what the Scientific community currently thinks. Once brain development begins, it gets more difficult to draw that line. I personally am not sure where I'd draw it, but my gut tells me that abortion is morally sound until fetal viability. Hard to get more specific from there for me.

And I totally agree. Unfortunately when it gets to that point, it comes to emotional arguments, and those tend to make little leeway on either front. With the rise in this new generation of pro-lifers against science, you can't even argue reasoning against them.

I can't say I'm on a different platform than yours, as I have no bearing or say in what women do with their bodies at whatever stage of development the fetus may be in, but I know for a fact I'm against restricting the rights of one party to pave way for the rights of another, especially when the advocates pushing for having these rights taken away don't care about the life after it's born. It's only about control with them.

Never against abortion being legal anywhere, only against there being a Federal "right" to an abortion, because the Constitution doesn't say anything about it. Im not against some regulation of abortion though. There are some circumstances like birth defects, congenital diseases, that would justify abortion past viability (about 23 weeks now) but very damned few. As for the first 8 weeks as you mentioned above, I support absolute, no questions asked legal abortion on demand.

But even if that's what I think now, I'm open to discussing the issue and listening to someone who believes differently. There are possibilities, or future scientific developments, etc., that could maybe change my mind someday. Thats why Im not especially persuaded by "general consensus" type stuff...the general consensus once upon a time was that if you float you're a witch, but if you sink you're innocent.

Would it continue being an issue, with you, if the Constitution was amended to protect women in that aspect? And if not, how easy do you feel it would be to get that amended considering the current state of government?

It's hard to argue against "general consensus" when we have to tackle blanket laws that conform to the general consensus. I wish to call it a useless platform, but in the glaring eye of politics these days, it's almost a requirement.

I'm curious though. How feasible do you think it would be to find a way to legalize abortions on a federal level while appeasing pro lifers?

 

[SyphenFreht]

I think you're right that the vast majority of the wave against abortion is coming from Right wing Conservative Christians, without a doubt. The thing is, if we want to make our position absolutely clear, we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge that there is a non-religious argument to be made, and while that group people making those arguments is smaller, and not the driving force behind the politics, I don't want to give those on that side of the argument the opportunity to call us out on using fallacious arguments or making assumptions about the other side.


I can see how you got there, but I think it's more specifically a philosophical point. Now, people's philosophy can obviously drive very strong emotions, but the argument can be made without an appeal to emotion. The current consensus is that most people agree "killing" is bad - that's easy; the hard part is determining when personhood is present, which is a requirement for killing.

I agree with @Lacius that without a brain it doesn't seem reasonable to assume personhood could possibly be present. That's consistent with what the Scientific community currently thinks. Once brain development begins, it gets more difficult to draw that line. I personally am not sure where I'd draw it, but my gut tells me that abortion is morally sound until fetal viability. Hard to get more specific from there for me.

And I totally agree. Unfortunately when it gets to that point, it comes to emotional arguments, and those tend to make little leeway on either front. With the rise in this new generation of pro-lifers against science, you can't even argue reasoning against them.

I can't say I'm on a different platform than yours, as I have no bearing or say in what women do with their bodies at whatever stage of development the fetus may be in, but I know for a fact I'm against restricting the rights of one party to pave way for the rights of another, especially when the advocates pushing for having these rights taken away don't care about the life after it's born. It's only about control with them.

Never against abortion being legal anywhere, only against there being a Federal "right" to an abortion, because the Constitution doesn't say anything about it. Im not against some regulation of abortion though. There are some circumstances like birth defects, congenital diseases, that would justify abortion past viability (about 23 weeks now) but very damned few. As for the first 8 weeks as you mentioned above, I support absolute, no questions asked legal abortion on demand.

But even if that's what I think now, I'm open to discussing the issue and listening to someone who believes differently. There are possibilities, or future scientific developments, etc., that could maybe change my mind someday. Thats why Im not especially persuaded by "general consensus" type stuff...the general consensus once upon a time was that if you float you're a witch, but if you sink you're innocent.

Would it continue being an issue, with you, if the Constitution was amended to protect women in that aspect? And if not, how easy do you feel it would be to get that amended considering the current state of government?

It's hard to argue against "general consensus" when we have to tackle blanket laws that conform to the general consensus. I wish to call it a useless platform, but in the glaring eye of politics these days, it's almost a requirement.

I'm curious though. How feasible do you think it would be to find a way to legalize abortions on a federal level while appeasing pro lifers?

 

[n00bsaib0t]

I have to add after your reply that With point 1/2 I didnt meant it as a punishment/consequence. People of course deside when or what or with who they have sex.

Point 3: Yes i have been raped (by a other guy) when i was 8. So yeah there is that. Also. I did note that i am a guy. (Idk if you read that but. if you didnt here you go.) Added: I know rapist are dealing with a lot of stuff in their past. I cant imagine someone raping out of nowhere unless that person is really mentally ill.

But still, I dont get the point why removed the right to abortion. if what you are saying is true and its only about control and punishment. Then why did they created in the first place? We are all humans after all.

I didn't mean to imply that you think these things. I know you're both male and not from America, if you're conservative you're not the same as our conservatives here. I was trying to explain what conservative talking points are here, what they have been doing, and why.

 

[Deleted member 575334]

I didn't mean to imply that you think these things. I know you're both male and not from America, if you're conservative you're not the same as our conservatives here. I was trying to explain what conservative talking points are here, what they have been doing, and why.

Yes, I know and i can't imagine how that feels like. I mean you are from there. so you must know whats best and whats not.

I am sorry if my reply came over douchey/rude. That wasnt my intention and I've read your reply.

Maybe its time for a change then in the whole system. You should know whats best and not. so i leave that up to you.

Edit: TBH. I am not busy with Politics and such. I have already a lot to deal with. So i dont even know if i am a democrat or conservative. Also. I've never voted in my life so.

 

[NoobletCheese]

Yes, and I'm one of those people, but belief that fetuses have moral consideration is different than saying abortion should be illegal and a fetus's moral considering takes precedence over a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Feel free to re-ask the question in a different way.

Alright I'll lay my cards on the table.

At some point between conception and birth I think the fetus/baby has a status or value that could be characterised as nontrivial. I don't know exactly at which month of pregnancy this occurs, but I also don't know exactly what age everyone gains the ability to consent to sex.

My guiding principle is to err on the side of caution if the consequences of getting it wrong are disastrous. In the case of consent I see two possibilities for disaster:

1. People getting falsely convicted of rape (if I set the age of consent too high)
2. Letting rapists go free (if I set it too low)

In my view it's better to let a guilty person go free than convict an innocent person, so I'll pick an age of consent value that is biased slightly lower.

In the case of abortion, also two possibilities for disaster:

1. Denying women of their bodily autonomy (if I set the abortion cutoff month too early)
2. Killing a baby (if I set the cutoff month too late)

In my view, killing a baby would be a worse disaster than denying a woman of their bodily autonomy, so I'll bias the cutoff month slightly lower to reflect that. Basically I want to be confident that I'm not killing something that might be a person, or something similar to a person, or a baby.

The fact that contraception and emergency contraception are available as alternatives play a part in my reasoning as well.

Most rules have exceptions, so I wouldn't find it particularly shocking or remarkable if there are scenarios where a later term abortion may be justified. eg. if the baby threatens the mothers life, then it may be justified as a self-defence killing regardless of how late term it is. Or in the case of rape where the mother couldn't access contraception or emergency contraception, then a later abortion may be justified. But how late am I willing to go? Would I kill a baby a few weeks before birth if the mother was raped?

Also I think it's unwise to "shoot first and ask question later", so the burden of proof should be on the person who proposes to kill something. I can't even kill a tree without getting approval from city council as it might be protected species or animal habitat.

 

[mrdude]

Joe Biden - it's all Putin's Fault.

 

[DoctorBagPhD]

It really feels like the US is just a third-world country trying to masquerade as a first-world one. Dire education, dire public health & infrastructure, an evident lack of women's rights and not to mention so, so many mass shootings that it's almost comical.

It's starting to feel like the great experiment has failed. Land of the free my arsehole. Free to die in poverty, maybe.

 

[Lacius]

At some point between conception and birth I think the fetus/baby has a status or value that could be characterised as nontrivial. I don't know exactly at which month of pregnancy this occurs

I agree.

In the case of abortion, also two possibilities for disaster:

1. Denying women of their bodily autonomy (if I set the abortion cutoff month too early)
2. Killing a baby (if I set the cutoff month too late)

An embryo is not a baby, but my significant rebuttals are below.

In my view, killing a baby would be a worse disaster than denying a woman of their bodily autonomy,

New scenario. There's an organ shortage, and people are dying on the waiting list because there aren't enough organs to go around. The state could, however, forcibly compel people to donate organs like kidneys. There are two scenarios:

1. Deny people their bodily autonomy
2. Killing a person who needs an organ

Per your logic, #1 is preferable. Yikes.

The fact that contraception and emergency contraception are available as alternatives play a part in my reasoning as well.

These aren't as readily available as you think to some people in some areas. In addition, politicians are making access to contraception, particularly emergency contraception, more difficult and in some cases outright illegal. We don't even need to talk about the lack of sex education in the USA.

Whether or not contraception can be or was used is also irrelevant to the topic of bodily autonomy, unless you want to argue that a person who doesn't use contraception is also on the hook for being compelled by the state to donate a kidney to a stranger if/when the need arises.

Most rules have exceptions, so I wouldn't find it particularly shocking or remarkable if there are scenarios where a later term abortion may be justified. eg. if the baby threatens the mothers life, then it may be justified as a self-defence killing regardless of how late term it is. Or in the case of rape where the mother couldn't access contraception or emergency contraception, then a later abortion may be justified. But how late am I willing to go? Would I kill a baby a few weeks before birth if the mother was raped?

A woman should have a right to bodily autonomy, which means she should be able to end a pregnancy at any point. If she terminates the pregnancy before fetal viability, it's an abortion. If she terminates after fetal viability, it's a birth.

If a fetus cannot survive outside the woman's body, that's too bad if the woman exerts her right to bodily autonomy, just like it would be too bad if you needed my kidney to survive and I said no.

Also I think it's unwise to "shoot first and ask question later", so the burden of proof should be on the person who proposes to kill something. I can't even kill a tree without getting approval from city council as it might be protected species or animal habitat.

"This embryo is siphoning resources from my body, it's causing irreparable and permanent changes to my body, and it has the potential to cause irreparable damage to my body or even kill me. I do not want this embryo inside me." That's more than enough of a justification for doing whatever she wants to her own body.

 

[MikaDubbz]

So much for separation of church and state. And don't kid yourself, this absolutely comes down to religious beliefs. If you believe that microscopic thing growing inside of you has a soul, then you consider abortion murder, and if you're Christian, you believe it has original sin and that's why it can't be killed. Now, if you don't think it has a soul, you might recognize it as a murder, but a murder with no consequences to a thing with no feeling, awareness, or memories, really not even as bad then as stepping on bug. Cool if you wish to believe such a thing has a soul, but messed up for the government to rule on that belief as fact.

 

[mrdude]

So much for separation of church and state. And don't kid yourself, this absolutely comes down to religious beliefs. If you believe that microscopic thing growing inside of you has a soul, then you consider abortion murder, and if you're Christian, you believe it has original sin and that's why it can't be killed. Now, if you don't think it has a soul, you might recognize it as a murder, but a murder with no consequences to a thing with no feeling, awareness, or memories, really not even as bad than stepping on bug. Cool if you wish to believe such a thing has a soul, but messed up for the government to rule on that belief as fact.

Do you think you have a soul? If so at what point of your life did you get it? Did you think it was the instant you were born, what if you were born prematurely, would you not have a soul? Did you get your soul at 9 weeks, 17 weeks, 9 months?

 

[Lacius]

Do you think you have a soul? If so at what point of your life did you get it? Did you think it was the instant you were born, what if you were born prematurely, would you not have a soul? Did you get your soul at 9 weeks, 17 weeks, 9 months?

There's no evidence the soul exists, and even if it did, and even if a fetus had one, it wouldn't be justification for anti-abortion laws.

If I needed your kidney to survive, you'd probably be pretty upset if the state forced you to donate it, even if you think I have a soul.

 

[MikaDubbz]

Do you think you have a soul? If so at what point of your life did you get it? Did you think it was the instant you were born, what if you were born prematurely, would you not have a soul? Did you get your soul at 9 weeks, 17 weeks, 9 months?

I genuinely have no idea. And that really is a huge part of it. We have no idea if a soul is a real thing even when we're alive, so why are we all then forced as a country to believe in such a religious idea is in effect in the womb, when supposedly there is supposed to be a separation of church and state? I would love if the government ruled on things based on facts and data, while letting religions preach their views how they please.

 

[mrdude]

There's no evidence the soul exists, and even if it did, and even if a fetus had one, it wouldn't be justification for anti-abortion laws.

If I needed your kidney to survive, you'd probably be pretty upset if the state forced you to donate it, even if you think I have a soul.

There's a big differnce between defending someone from murdering a defenceless baby and someone trying to steal your kidney. Both are illegal - get over it you tyrant.

 

[MikaDubbz]

There's a big differnce between defending someone from murdering a defenceless baby and someone trying to steal your kidney. Both are illegal - get over it you tyrant.

There's a big difference between a baby and newly fertilized egg too.

 

[mrdude]

I genuinely have no idea. And that really is a huge part of it. We have no idea if a soul is a real thing even when we're alive, so why are we all then forced as a country to believe in such a religious idea is in effect in the womb, when supposedly there is supposed to be a separation of church and state? I would love if the government ruled on things based on facts and data, while letting religions preach their views how they please.

All that's happened is it's now the decision of each state - if you don't like the laws of the state you live in you can always move to another state where you prefer the laws.

 

[MikaDubbz]

All that's happened is it's now the decision of each state - if you don't like the laws of the state you live in you can always move to another state where you prefer the laws.

K. What was wrong with the system we already had? Why go back on a decision and in turn go against the very idea of the separation of church and state?

 

[DoctorBagPhD]

Do you think you have a soul? If so at what point of your life did you get it? Did you think it was the instant you were born, what if you were born prematurely, would you not have a soul? Did you get your soul at 9 weeks, 17 weeks, 9 months?

They never got one at any point because they don't exist. Only people who believe in mad shit like talking snakes, dude's with donkey penises, rings-within-rings covered in eyes and not eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics think there's a magic ghost inside them. I guess the US christian right keep forgetting not only is there a recipe for inducing an abortion in the bible but god is pretty cool with real child murder as opposed to terminating a fetus (Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. -Psalm 137:9).

 

[MikaDubbz]

I guess we should all consider ourselves 9 months older than we really are too. I mean if it's murder, you can't have been killed at negative 8 months years old.

 

[mrdude]

There's a big difference between a baby and newly fertilized egg too.

At what point does that fertilised egg that is a growing baby become a baby, the moment of fetilisation or after 9 weeks, what about 8 weeks and 6 days? The thing is, at some point the egg is classed as a human, where do you draw the line? Nobody can stop a women going to a place where abortion is legal - you can have the abortion there, or you can just not have sex, or use contraception, the morning after pill etc - there's lots of choices available.