Roe V Wade has been repealed

[SyphenFreht]

Radicalisation for what purpose? To achieve what? What's the end game? Control? Authoritarianism?

Yes. You appeal to a strong subset of voters so you can stay in power. Like Hitler did.

 

[NoobletCheese]

Cry me a river that I'm dismissive of somebody's belief in taking away a person's right to bodily autonomy, lol.

Regarding bodily autonomy, am I correct in presuming you're not ok with abortions beyond a certain number of months? If that is the case then you also want to take away women's autonomy, just a bit later on.

 

[appleburger]

It isn't a slippery slope argument to talk about legal precedents and what the concurrent opinion literally suggested should come next.

That's correct. Talking about legal precedents is not necessarily usage of the slippery slope fallacy. Saying we should make one decision because the next precedent is even worse is - explicit and objectively usage of it, and that's what I was referencing to in the point you rebutted.

Not to sound disrespectful, but why are you still talking?

Did I disrespect you? If I did, I'm sorry, that wasn't intentional, but if I didn't then don't disrespect me. I'd appreciate it if you showed me the same respect you would in person. I'll flame people on here if they're rude to me, you can see it in my post history, but I'm not interested in flame wars.

I'm still talking because I find it engaging to discuss issues with people. It helps me form more sound opinions and gives me an opportunity to challenge my views.

 

[The Catboy]

You care about the baby being born but not what happens after it's born. You want to know nothing about it.

He is actually a neo-Nazi that is open about his goal of forcing more white people into the world. This isn’t a joke, this actually something he said in a now deleted thread.

 

[Lacius]

Regarding bodily autonomy, am I correct in presuming you're not ok with abortions beyond a certain number of months? If that is the case then you also want to take away women's autonomy, just a bit later on.

A woman has a right to bodily autonomy 100% of the time, whether it's 9 days or 9 months into a pregnancy. However, a right to bodily autonomy means only that: a right to her own body. If she terminates a pregnancy at 9 days, it's an abortion. If she terminates at 9 months, it's a birth. That's why the previous precedent of fetal viability was correct.

There is no case in which I would take away a woman's bodily autonomy rights.

 

[Deleted member 414991]

Pisses me off how what we have is a vitally important complex of civil rights that are all based on shoddy legal reasoning by judges legislating from the bench. Instead of recognizing how fragile they were, democrats were too cowardly and moronic to do anything to enshrine them into law, believing for god knows what that this was a settled issue. The reasoning behind Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v Hodges, etc. were all very shoddy in my opinion and we should never have relied on them. This was always going to fall at some point, and we never did anything to catch it.

 

[Lacius]

Did I disrespect you? If I did, I'm sorry, that wasn't intentional, but if I didn't then don't disrespect me. I'd appreciate it if you showed me the same respect you would in person.

My point is you seem to be arguing with me without disagreeing with me, so I don't know what the point is.

 

[appleburger]

That's kinda the point though, isn't it? If we use deductive reasoning to reason that religion is not a component when it comes to science, then it must be true that when science isn't explicitly used in an anti abortion argument, then the component must be emotion. Except, we have several generations of Christian values that have equated anti abortion sentiments alongside emotionally based, moralistic value. It's not unheard of to be against the extinguish of life in any capacity, any form, but when you have notably Conservative Republican Christians pushing the anti science agenda when it comes to pro life debates, one can deduce that their emotional reasoning comes from a belief in a higher power that dictates their moralistic values.

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.

...it must be true that when science isn't explicitly used in an anti abortion argument, then the component must be emotion.

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.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

How does it benefit themselves?

I suppose even when people help others it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling inside and this technically benefits themselves because it feels good, and some philosophers go as far as saying altruist acts are inherently selfish because of this, but I don't necessarily agree.

Like it benefits bigots and racists: ever watched the early episode of the Simpsons "Marge vs Itchy and Scratchy"?

 

[Lacius]

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 viability. Hard to get more specific from there for me.

To be clear, even if a fetus were completely sentient/sapient, it wouldn't justify violating the pregnant woman's right to bodily autonomy. My point about an embryo not being a person, or a pregnant person not being a parent, was about terminology only.

 

[n00bsaib0t]

See, this is what I'm talking about. Some things can be defined objectively, sure. But definitions that relate to subjective and controversial matters are not absolutes. "An embryo is not a person" doesn't become a true statement of fact just because someone claiming to be the arbiter writes a definition. From my perspective, your reliance on sources of "truth" that agree with your opinions is the proof of your immature reasoning. "A person with a penis can be a woman if they think they are" is "truth" according to sources you can quote as authority, but patently absurd in reality. "An embryo is not a person" may be something you believe strongly, but if some other person believes an embryo's individual and unique DNA, beating heart, nervous system and brain activity all do make it a person, their belief is just as valid as yours. No matter what Priscilla Prickly-Tits at Merriam-Webster has to say about it. That's the nature of controversial topics ... different people rationally believe different things, and you're not automatically correct just because some twerp at DailyKos said the same thing as you.

You disagreeing with facts doesn't make them wrong. "Their belief is just as valid as yours" is demonstratably false. Just look at the "stolen election" garbage. It was not true at all, never was. People chose to believe it, and no their belief was not just as valid as the people who didn't believe it. The same applies here. Science is a process for finding the truth, when the truth is found and hurts your feelings that's not a valid reason to disagree with it and demand that your view be seen as "just as valid". The nature of controversial topics in this manner is always boiling down to just that, people who can't handle the truth. This isn't fucking 1998 WWF and people debating if it's okay for dick jokes to be made by D-Generation X on prime time television, that was a controversial topic. This is just people stuck in out dated religious beliefs trying to force those beliefs on the rest of the country because they can't handle that the facts moved on and left them in the dust.

 

[appleburger]

My point is you seem to be arguing with me without disagreeing with me, so I don't know what the point is.

Ah, gotcha. I was mostly trying to steelman your argument in my responses, not fight against it. My first post mentioning Slippery Slope was also in response to multiple users.

 

[Deleted member 575334]

Edit 2: Apperantly Some people think i am a Woman. i have to clarify that i am NOT A WOMAN (if that wasn't obvious by my name already). The text below already said that. But people still read over it.


Idk about this: For me its double (I am not a woman) but i can only think of this as bad.
Why:

1/2. 1: If someone desides to have unsafe sex and a women gets pregnant. That their own fault. There are tools to prevent unwanted pregnancys. (And yes, I know unsafe can feel better. But is that a risk you are willing to take if you dont want to have kids?) 2: Someone that decides to have kids shouldn't yell later: I dont want to have kids. You had the chance to prevent it.

3: In a case of Rape: You should be allowed to make a abortus. Because no one wants to have kids from a rapist. (This is the only argument why i think abortus can be a good thing.)

4; Human lives are worthy, You have a right to be alive. of course. No one asked to be on this rock. Sure i get it. but is ending the right to have abortus a good thing? On some points it is. But on some points (see number 3) i don't think that is smart.

I can only imagine more rape cases, people trying to dump their child in the weirdest places and people trying to get illegal abortion.

I am not from the USA, so technically i have no say in this. But i just wanted to share my opinion on this.
But of course. My Local news channels are also discussing it. So the world is aware of this.


Edit: Fixed minor spelling mistakes.

 

[stanleyopar2000]

Abortion is not "illegal in the US." It is now up to each state to decide.

Until GQP has supermajority and federally bans it. This is "States rights" until they have the ability to subjugate further

McConnell confirmed that a federal ban is their endgame, and only backtracked when he realized that he shouldn't have said that

 

[Hanafuda]

It seems that when abortion was legal and federally backed you were against it, so what's the difference now? At what point is abortion legal in your eyes?

And in this same thread we have people arguing that less than 1% of abortions are from rape and therefore should be ignored. Seems like both sides argue in favor of the majority, doesn't it? The difference is, my argument doesn't restrict the rights of already established people.

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.

 

[appleburger]

To be clear, even if a fetus were completely sentient/sapient, it wouldn't justify violating the pregnant woman's right to bodily autonomy. My point about an embryo not being a person, or a pregnant person not being a parent, was about terminology only.

I think this is a good point, and it's why I personally feel the autonomy argument is stronger than fighting over the line drawn on personhood. That's where a lot of folks get stuck. The moral implications of "killing" can still be brought up here by the other side, so there's no avoiding it completely and that's why I think this will be philosophical until Science can get further, but I think discussing bodily autonomy and those implications are much stronger than the "fetus=baby" point that gets slapped around a lot, as things currently stand.

 

[Lacius]

I think this is a good point, and it's why I personally feel the autonomy argument is stronger than fighting over the line drawn on personhood. That's where a lot of folks get stuck. The moral implications of "killing" can still be brought up here by the other side, so there's no avoiding it completely and that's why I think this will be philosophical until Science can get further, but I think discussing bodily autonomy and those implications are much stronger than the "fetus=baby" point that gets slapped around a lot, as things currently stand.

In a consistent world, the day a woman is required to carry a pregnancy to term in the interest of "preserving life" is the same day I can be required to donate one of my kidneys to a stranger.

 

[n00bsaib0t]

1/2. 1: If someone desides to have unsafe sex and a women gets pregnant. That their own fault. There are tools to prevent unwanted pregnancys. (And yes, I know unsafe can feel better. But is that a risk you are willing to take if you dont want to have kids?) 2: Someone that decides to have kids shouldn't yell later: I dont want to have kids. You had the chance to prevent it.

3: In a case of Rape: You should be allowed to make a abortus. Because no one wants to have kids from a rapist. (This is the only argument why i think abortus can be a good thing.)

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.

 

[appleburger]

In a consistent world, the day a woman is required to carry a pregnancy to term in the interest of "preserving life" is the same day I can be required to donate one of my kidneys to a stranger.

Don't hate me, but this can also be drawn up to a false equivalence. I agree with this sentiment, but only because you and I both presuppose that the fetus isn't alive (at least up to a point), so this still gives opponents the opportunity to say we're comparing a liver to a human being. So it still boils back down to that same point.

I think your point above of saying, "Okay, let's assume for sake of argument that it IS an alive human. Here's why my argument still holds up" puts more pressure on the other side, because now you've stripped away their potential to run back to "stop killing babies", because you've eliminated that point, and now they have to be more honest with their actual point. When I do this, eventually I learn that many pro-life advocates I talk to are really just hiding behind that talking point to hide their real objection (which so far has always been less tasteful and easy to call out for being a terrible take), or have blindly adopted it and aren't actually sure what they think the right call is.

In our other abortion thread, I walked one of the pro-life users through their own logic until we all found they were more pro-choice than most of us were, once we weeded out the "baby/fetus" stuff. I don't want to call the user out directly, but I know a few of you were around to witness that.

I'll rescind this - I misunderstood the comparison.

 

[Lacius]

Don't hate me, but this can also be drawn up to a false equivalence. I agree with this sentiment, but only because you and I both presuppose that the fetus isn't alive (at least up to a point), so this still gives opponents the opportunity to say we're comparing a liver to a human being. So it still boils back down to that same point.

I think your point above of saying, "Okay, let's assume for sake of argument that it IS an alive human. Here's why my argument still holds up" puts more pressure on the other side, because now you've stripped away their potential to run back to "stop killing babies", because you've eliminated that point, and now they have to be more honest with their actual point. When I do this, eventually I learn that many pro-life advocates I talk to are really just hiding behind that talking point to hide their real objection (which so far has always been less tasteful and easy to call out for being a terrible take), or have blindly adopted it and aren't actually sure what they think the right call is.

In our other abortion thread, I walked one of the pro-life users through their own logic until we all found they were more pro-choice than most of us were, once we weeded out the "baby/fetus" stuff. I don't want to call the user out directly, but I know a few of you were around to witness that.

I think you've misunderstood the comparison.

The fetus is the stranger who needs the organ, the kidney-removal is the pregnancy, and the person unwillingly giving up a kidney is the woman being unable to have an abortion under state law.

So, it doesn't matter if we say a fetus is a person or not (it's not), because the stranger who needs an organ is a person, and we would still be appalled at violating one's right to bodily autonomy by taking an organ from them.

If I refused to give someone a kidney, we wouldn't say I killed that person.