U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,383
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,164
Country
Poland
We had this conversation a long time ago where you refused to acknowledge that a pregnancy can cause irreparable change, harm, or even death, and you refused to acknowledge how that made it comparable to organ donation. Frankly, I'm not interested in reading the same disingenuous points again.

Lol, we could also make the hypothetical use of the kidney temporary, and your objections would fall apart regardless.
My objection is perfectly valid - your argument is based on a false dichotomy. You’re taking the slim possibility of bodily harm and stretching it to an inevitability in order to make a point. There is precedent for the state restricting a citizen’s freedom and agency, that always has the potential of negatively affecting their health. It has never been equated to organ theft because that’s ridiculous. You’re pretending that the only two options are abortion or doing harm when that’s not the case.

This also isn't the fallacy you meant to say. Whether or not you're right about the problems with my analogy (you aren't right), it wouldn't be a false dichotomy. It'd be a false analogy.
It’d be both, as a false dichotomy is a fallacy which erroneously limits options (either the state allows abortion *or* it’s doing quantifiable harm to the body - in reality there’s another option, doing neither and just waiting until the problem solves itself), but I suppose you are correct - a false analogy is more appropriate since I’m taking strictly about your example. Well-spotted.
 

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,144
Country
United States
A sperm has a zero percent chance of becoming a baby if there is no egg nearby, so no. Even extreme anti-abortion advocates generally don't say that.

You're right, but in regards to that of an actual baby, a sperm is just another step to forming said baby, much like a "clump of cells" and so on. It's a half assed attempt at showing similarly absurd arguments.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,205
Country
United States
You’re taking the slim possibility of bodily harm and stretching it to an inevitability in order to make a point.
The risk of permanent bodily change is pretty significant with pregnancy, even if we aren't talking about major health risks. The same goes for kidney donation. Both also carry surprisingly similar health and mortality risks. They're comparable, particularly with regard to the whole point being about bodily autonomy, and it's ridiculously disingenuous to suggest they aren't.

A pregnancy could have a 0% mortality risk (it definitely doesn't), and a kidney donation could have a 70% mortality risk (it definitely doesn't), and it still wouldn't be a false analogy when you stop and consider my point.

There is precedent for the state restricting a citizen’s freedom and agency, that always has the potential of negatively affecting their health.
I'd like to hear some specific examples so we are on the same page, but only after you concede the above. If you can't do that, I'd rather end the conversation here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nothereed and Xzi

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,383
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,164
Country
Poland
The risk of permanent bodily change is pretty significant with pregnancy, even if we aren't talking about major health risks. The same goes for kidney donation. Both also carry surprisingly similar health and mortality risks. They're comparable, particularly with regard to the whole point being about bodily autonomy, and it's ridiculously disingenuous to suggest they aren't.

A pregnancy could have a 0% mortality risk (it definitely doesn't), and a kidney donation could have a 70% mortality risk (it definitely doesn't), and it still wouldn't be a false analogy when you stop and consider my point.
Of course it would be. Pregnancy has a small chance of causing bodily harm, a compulsory kidney transplant inevitably leads to losing a kidney. I can’t hold the state liable for unexpected twists of fate, I can hold it liable for deliberate organ theft. There is no uncertainty in regards to a compulsory organ transplant - the donor is losing an organ, at minimum.

*hums “one of those things is not like the other”*

*If* a woman were to be forced to carry to term by the state, for instance due to how advanced the pregnancy is (there’s a strictly medical cut-off point for when an abortion is a viable option, ethics aside), the only duty the state has is duty of care.
I'd like to hear some specific examples so we are on the same page, but only after you concede the above. If you can't do that, I'd rather end the conversation here.
You’d like to hear a specific example of the state restricting a citizen’s freedom and agency? Have you not heard of prison? :lol: Why would I “concede” when the state does things like this routinely, and always has?

EDIT: Just to put things into perspective, around 6% of pregnancies encounter high-risk complications which, if left untreated, may be detrimental to the health of the mother or the child in question. If the state were to force the woman to carry to term, duty of care would dictate that it has to provide a reasonable standard of medical care in order to alleviate such issues. By comparison, 100% of kidney transplants leave the donor a kidney short, and there is no way to alleviate this - the only thing one can ensure is that the procedure itself is safe. Comparing the two as if they’re similar is silly - they’re not. Even if potential health risks were exactly the same, only one of those procedures involves direct and deliberate harm via organ removal.
 
Last edited by Foxi4,

Xzi

Elden Lord
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
14,636
Trophies
2
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
10,396
Country
United States
A sperm has a zero percent chance of becoming a baby if there is no egg nearby, so no. Even extreme anti-abortion advocates generally don't say that.
There are some Republican candidates pitching a ban on all contraceptives however, including Trump-backed candidates (which I suppose makes them "mainstream" by today's shitshow standards). That's the level of insanity we're dealing with here. The ruling class are total dipshits if they think they can force a baby boom without first providing the material conditions necessary to support one. They don't even provide that for the current working class, let alone the future one.
 

omgcat

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
804
Trophies
1
XP
2,300
Country
United States
Pregnancy has a small chance of causing bodily harm
this is patently false, pregnancies regularly cause bodily harm to women. blood pressure issues, pre-eclampsia, anemia, Hyperemesis Gravidarum, esophageal damage due to morning sickness, pelvic floor damage, gestational diabetes. this is on top of the HUNDREDS of complications from childbirth that can have permanent effects on the woman's body, such as uterine rupture, Retained Placenta, good ol infections, pelvic floor prolapse, Perineal tears and the classic excessive bleeding.

what you consider fine, others consider "bodily harm" to themselves. i had a friend end up with GERD so bad from her pregnancy that it burned a hole in her esophagus.

birth is not a safe process, and anyone should be able to abort for whatever reason they wish (granted the current laws really only allow before 28 weeks anyways. maybe if the USA had stellar maternal mortality rates it'd be less fucked. but we have 3rd world country levels of maternal mortality rates.

listicle-map2a.png


these numbers are getting worse, not better, especially since states have defunded planed parenthood (one of the largest supplier of pre-natal and neo-natal care).

 

Haloman800

a real gril
Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
1,872
Trophies
0
XP
1,734
Country
United States
what about rape? what about when the semen donor gone missing? what about children? what about those not capable of understanding the consequences? what about those forced?
Rape and incest is less than 1% of abortions. For the sake of argument, if we said "you can murder your unborn child if they are the product of rape/incest", are you on board with protecting the life of the other 99%?

Let me guess, you aren't. So stop bringing up "rape" as an excuse to justify murdering unborn children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zfreeman

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,383
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,164
Country
Poland
Whoa now, sir. Leave Sesame Street out of this! 😱
Sometimes I feel like I am on Sesame Street when I’m around these parts.

“This hamburger is too hot, I lost my appetite, I’m going to throw it away. I don’t want to burn my mouth.”
“Hey, why won’t you just leave it for a minute and wait for it to cool down? Would that help?”
“How is that different than me eating your arm instead?”
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tabzer

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,144
Country
United States
Rape and incest is less than 1% of abortions. For the sake of argument, if we said "you can murder your unborn child if they are the product of rape/incest", are you on board with protecting the life of the other 99%?

Let me guess, you aren't. So stop bringing up "rape" as an excuse to justify murdering unborn children.
If rape by itself isn't enough to justify an abortion, then stop using the protection of unborn "babies" to excuse your outdated opinion on how women should control their bodies. Regardless of whether that statistic is accurate or not, that's still around 40 million women globally who have to suffer the consequences of something they had no control over. But who cares about their lives being ruined when we can save lives that haven't even formed executive brain activity yet.

How do you say you have no empathy for women of any kind without actually saying it?
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,383
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,164
Country
Poland
this is patently false, pregnancies regularly cause bodily harm to women. blood pressure issues, pre-eclampsia, anemia, Hyperemesis Gravidarum, esophageal damage due to morning sickness, pelvic floor damage, gestational diabetes. this is on top of the HUNDREDS of complications from childbirth that can have permanent effects on the woman's body, such as uterine rupture, Retained Placenta, good ol infections, pelvic floor prolapse, Perineal tears and the classic excessive bleeding.

what you consider fine, others consider "bodily harm" to themselves. i had a friend end up with GERD so bad from her pregnancy that it burned a hole in her esophagus.

birth is not a safe process, and anyone should be able to abort for whatever reason they wish (granted the current laws really only allow before 28 weeks anyways. maybe if the USA had stellar maternal mortality rates it'd be less fucked. but we have 3rd world country levels of maternal mortality rates.

these numbers are getting worse, not better, especially since states have defunded planed parenthood (one of the largest supplier of pre-natal and neo-natal care).
All this just to tell us that it’s 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births, or 0.02%? We must have a different threshold of acceptable risk. For the record, we are comparing the 100% certainty of losing a kidney (since that is the purpose of the operation) plus other associated risks on top to the normal risk of carrying a pregnancy to term. Unless we can agree that one of those things is not like the other, which is the entire point of this silly thought experiment, your point has no merit.
 

omgcat

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
804
Trophies
1
XP
2,300
Country
United States
Whoa now, sir. Leave Sesame Street out of this! 😱


There is no shortage of politicians with bad ideas. That's for sure.

All this just to tell us that it’s 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births, or 0.02%? We must have a different threshold of acceptable risk. For the record, we are comparing the 100% certainty of losing a kidney (since that is the purpose of the operation) plus other associated risks on top to the normal risk of carrying a pregnancy to term. Unless we can agree that one of those things is not like the other, which is the entire point of this silly thought experiment, your point has no merit.

dude, you said bodily harm, you don't need to die to have bodily harm. the 23 deaths per 100k was to accentuate the point that our medical care is fucked. talk about dense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dark_Ansem

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,383
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,164
Country
Poland
dude, you said bodily harm, you don't need to die to have bodily harm. the 23 deaths per 100k was to accentuate the point that our medical care is fucked. talk about dense.
I said that the risk of bodily harm is low, and it is - I never said it’s perfectly safe. We’re arguing a hypothetical here, it’s not a comment on the healthcare system. We’re comparing giving birth to donating a kidney, as a (admittedly silly) thought experiment. Only one of those procedures is associated with a 100% chance of losing a kidney, lest we forget. Talk about dense indeed - context is key. I even *gave you* the figure you’re looking for in the post you’re quoting - high-risk complications occur in around 6% of pregnancies. I also specifically stated that in the event of such compulsion, the duty of care would lay squarely on the state. I’m already aware of what you’re saying, it’s just that what you’re saying has no bearing on what’s being argued here.
 
Last edited by Foxi4,

tabzer

etymological and/or pedantic
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,578
Trophies
1
Age
38
XP
2,759
Country
Japan
I've made the point before @Lacius, that the analogy of forced organ transplant does not coordinate with the conditions of a forced pregnancy. It is a broken analogy of convenience. You apparently hate analogies, and only use them as a last resort. (You are bad at them)

A life is created and it is indentured to its condition. Those responsible to creating this indentured condition are responsible for maintaining it, or providing an alternative that is better, not worse--unless they are willing to sacrifice that life. Your organ transplant analogy will not acknowledge a situation where the person being forced to give an organ made the organ transplant necessary.

And yes, sex does lead to pregnancy, if done correctly. The pregnancy is a reasonable expectation. When would you argue that people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions when the consequences are the expected outcome?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Foxi4 and zfreeman

Xzi

Elden Lord
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
14,636
Trophies
2
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
10,396
Country
United States
There is no shortage of politicians with bad ideas. That's for sure.
It's not just a few politicians and it's not just a "bad idea," though. It's one of the only two major political parties in this country openly strategizing on ways to implement those disastrous ideas, and in some states actually succeeding. Quite dystopian.
 

Xzi

Elden Lord
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
14,636
Trophies
2
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
10,396
Country
United States
And yes, sex does lead to pregnancy, if done correctly. The pregnancy is a reasonable expectation. When would you argue that people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions when the consequences are the expected outcome?
If something is "done correctly," as you describe it, why should there be any "consequences" for it? For that matter, why do you feel the need to ascribe consequences to sex when it's done simply for pleasure? Seems awfully prudish of you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dark_Ansem

Dark_Ansem

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
842
Trophies
0
Location
Death Star
XP
833
Country
United Kingdom
And yes, sex does lead to pregnancy, if done correctly. The pregnancy is a reasonable expectation. When would you argue that people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions when the consequences are the expected outcome?
This language is extremely troubling. Are you looking with enjoyment at the idea of punishing women because they dare enjoying sex?
If something is "done correctly," as you describe it, why should there be any "consequences" for it? For that matter, why do you feel the need to ascribe consequences to sex when it's done simply for pleasure? Seems awfully prudish of you.
It's not prudish, it's mysoginist. Even in the Middle Ages you'd abort until the 20th week or something. These people are literally more backwards than Middle Age priests. Which is even funnier as the only time abortion is mentioned in the Bible is when instructions are provided.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi

Xzi

Elden Lord
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
14,636
Trophies
2
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
10,396
Country
United States
It's not prudish, it's mysoginist. Even in the Middle Ages you'd abort until the 20th week or something. These people are literally more backwards than Middle Age priests. Which is even funnier as the only time abortion is mentioned in the Bible is when instructions are provided.
It does feel mostly like an "I hate women..." type of thing, but the other half of that sentence is usually "...because they aren't having sex with me specifically." Only reason I can think of for getting pissed off over other people having sex strictly for pleasure.
 
Last edited by Xzi,
  • Like
Reactions: smf and Dark_Ansem
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    KenniesNewName @ KenniesNewName: Won't lie kinda cool...