Society/Culture Reproductive Rights: Roe vs Wade, abortion, etc

[The Cryptkeeper]

There is NOTHING NATURAL about rape in our lawful human world. Rape violates consent. Rape takes something from the individual, and if the victim happens to be a woman what it puts back is half the genetic material of the rapist. Would you want that growing inside you?

I realise that an argument might follow that all children, even children of rape, are innocent of the crimes that created them but still, they are proceeds of crime. Unless the mother is willing to carry to term they are proto-life who never should have been. They don't belong.

I'm a man and have only ever read about and listened to the accounts of women who have gone through nine months (give or take) of gestation and birth. To go through this when the life inside you is there through the love of your partner or with a little IVF boost is one thing, but to feel so utterly detached from what is growing inside? To feel like its not yours and has no business being inside of you?

To demand that of unwilling women is unconscionable in my view.

Very well said.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

And many pro choice crusaders believe in abortion up to birth. The literal butchering of a 39w baby. Something too horrendous and sick to even contemplate. Let’s not pretend that both sides don’t have their extremist “fellow travellers”.

There are plenty more extremists on the anti-abortion side. It's not even close. These people line up outside abortion clinics and abuse people, as if that is their right.

Of course there should be a cutoff. What that is, is for better minds than you and I to decide. But to force r*ped women to give birth is beyond sick. I know of very few people, in fact none on the pro-choice side of the debate that would advocate terminating a 39 week pregnancy either so let's not make out that this is a "both sides are as bad as each other" thing. It isn't. For starters, only one side hides behind religion as if that should validate their self-proclaimed right to exercise power over a woman's body. The other side uses science and common-sense.

 

[Malifice]

I think RvW is in serious jeopardy for no other reason than the composition (and stated prior views) of the USSC bench.

The most recent judges were basically appointed for this very reason.

 

[Opine]

I think RvW is in serious jeopardy for no other reason than the composition (and stated prior views) of the USSC bench.

The most recent judges were basically appointed for this very reason.

Trump’s legacy is now the Supreme Court

Nominating three people to the court joins impeachment and his criticized coronavirus response as the events that will define Trump's first term.

www.politico.com

 

[Chief]

Why don't the anti-abortion absolutists come up with a voluntary scheme? Any woman looking to terminate their pregnancy is able to apply for funding to support the woman through the pregnancy and, should a child result, all of the child's future expenses.

This could be paid for by the churches and anti-abortionists. Surely life is beyond value to so a million or two per saved child is cheap at twice the price?

 

[ElectricG]

Why don't the anti-abortion absolutists come up with a voluntary scheme? Any woman looking to terminate their pregnancy is able to apply for funding to support the woman through the pregnancy and, should a child result, all of the child's future expenses.

This could be paid for by the churches and anti-abortionists. Surely life is beyond value to so a million or two per saved child is cheap at twice the price?

Or she could take reasonable steps to not get pregnant? Why should people be forced to pay for their choice?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The SC won't have the balls to outlaw abortion. They must still stay within the rough bounds of public opinion.

But they may say states can ban (its already de facto banned in many states.

Illegal abortions will soar as will aborton tourism for those who can afford it.

What a disgusting society.

 

[Chief]

Or she could take reasonable steps to not get pregnant? Why should people be forced to pay for their choice?

You think enforcement of this law is going to be cost free?

You think the inevitable loss of life when illegal abortions increase is going to be cost free?

 

[ElectricG]

You think enforcement of this law is going to be cost free?

You think the inevitable loss of life when illegal abortions increase is going to be cost free?

I never understood this philosophy when in comes to criminal activity. Yes I’m sure prosecuting backyard abortionists isn’t free. It’s a cost worth paying to stop people getting pregnant and murdering the baby.

 

[Contra Mundum]

A good example of Lefty Clairvoyance where instead of taking them at their word and responding to the arguments, we respond to the thoughts in their heads that we assume are there.

How many cells is a child? it’s a bullshit argument and it creates a false binary - this is a country without paid sick leave or maternity leave. the most aggressive States in the anti abortion laws have the worst infant mortality.

You can’t legislate morality - Fidel was right when he said “abortion should be safe, legal and rare” - free health care would lead to less abortion. if you can get the pill and have maternal support then abortion is reduced

There where less abortions in East Germany than West Germany because of comprehensive sex education and free health care.

Most people agrees third trimester abortions are more like killing than a morning after pill - with better health care and maternal health measures you can prevent this from happening

If Roe gets over turned it will just punish the poor who work at walmart and can’t get a week off the fly to Cali and get an abortion

 

[darth_timon]

Or she could take reasonable steps to not get pregnant? Why should people be forced to pay for their choice?

Many women take reasonable steps and still end up pregnant.

 

[ElectricG]

Many women take reasonable steps and still end up pregnant.

Again, rape as justification for abortion is very rare. The vast majority are to do with personal circumstances such as the pregnancy being accidental and the parents not feeling “ready” to raise a child. Yet rape seems to be all anybody can talk about here.

 

[darth_timon]

Again, rape as justification for abortion is very rare. The vast majority are to do with personal circumstances such as the pregnancy being accidental and the parents not feeling “ready” to raise a child. Yet rape seems to be all anybody can talk about here.

I didn't say rape. Contraceptives can be used and they can fail. Though for the record, I support a woman's right to self-determination, and that includes getting an abortion if she does not consider herself ready for motherhood.

 

[ElectricG]

I didn't say rape. Contraceptives can be used and they can fail. Though for the record, I support a woman's right to self-determination, and that includes getting an abortion if she does not consider herself ready for motherhood.

Okay and I support the baby’s right to live.

 

[darth_timon]

Okay and I support the baby’s right to live.

At what stage does the foetus override the life of the mother?

 

[ElectricG]

At what stage does the foetus override the life of the mother?

Never. I support abortion where the life of the mother is threatened or if the pregnancy is the product of rape.

 

[CM86]

There won't be a middle ground found if one side see a human life and the other see an inconvenience.

What an embarrassingly dishonest statement.
A good way to demonstrate that there's no point attempting to engage with you.

 

[CM86]

Never. I support abortion where the life of the mother is threatened or if the pregnancy is the product of rape.

Why?

 

[Malifice]

Okay and I support the baby’s right to live.

There is no baby. Neither legally or scientifically.

 

[ElectricG]

Why?

At that point it becomes a matter sacrificing the mother’s life for the baby’s. I think terminating the pregnancy is defensible at that point as a “trolley problem” type scenario. And no, becoming a single mother is not equivalent.

 

[CM86]

At that point it becomes a matter sacrificing the mother’s life for the baby’s. I think terminating the pregnancy is defensible at that point as a “trolley problem” type scenario. And no, becoming a single mother is not equivalent.

But how do you qualify that choice to yourself?

The trolley problem is an interesting hypothetical.
You're talking about actual events that actually happen.

Out of curiosity, what would your choice be in the trolley problem?

 

[ElectricG]

But how do you qualify that choice to yourself?

The trolley problem is an interesting hypothetical.
You're talking about actual events that actually happen.

Out of curiosity, what would your choice be in the trolley problem?

View attachment 1295557

One disclaimer, I do not consider the fetus’s, life of equal value to the mother’s.

As for the trolley problem, I don’t have an answer. Assuming I’m the person at the points, and the points set are so the train collides with one person only, the choice to not intervene is straight forward. If the points are set so as to kill four people, intervening would reduce the net loss of life, but the killing of that one person now becomes a deliberate act on my part which will be witnessed by others and something I have to live with. It’s a hard choice between tragedy and justifiable murder and I think both points can be defended.

If we are talking about a trolley problem with the mother on the main line and the fetus on the siding, I can respect the choice to reverse the points.

If we have the fetus/unborn baby on the main line, and on the siding we have the mother’s short term career aspirations, or her desire to get some travel in before settling down, the decision to throw the points is callous and sick.

 

[CM86]

One disclaimer, I do not consider the fetus’s, life of equal value to the mother’s.

But why not?

What do you base your valuations on?

As for the trolley problem, I don’t have an answer. Assuming I’m the person at the points, and the points set are so the train collides with one person only, the choice to not intervene is straight forward. If the points are set so as to kill four people, intervening would reduce the net loss of life, but the killing of that one person now becomes a deliberate act on my part which will be witnessed by others and something I have to live with. It’s a hard choice between tragedy and justifiable murder and I think both points can be defended.

If we are talking about a trolley problem with the mother on the main line and the fetus on the siding, I can respect the choice to reverse the points.

If we have the fetus/unborn baby on the main line, and on the siding we have the mother’s short term career aspirations, or her desire to get some travel in before settling down, the decision to throw the points is callous and sick.

So the trolley problem is, that the train is on course to kill five people. There is a switch that will redirect the train, where it will kill one person.
The dilemma is that you must make a choice.
Either you do nothing, and the tragedy occurs.
Or you directly intervene and your actions kill one person.






What if it was only one person on both tracks?
Would you intervene, killing one person to save the other.
Or would you just let it happen?

a deliberate act on my part which will be witnessed by others

I don't think the 'being witnessed' should have any impact.

Never. I support abortion where the life of the mother is threatened or if the pregnancy is the product of rape.

I'm just trying to understand your position.
You're against abortion, but you make exceptions?

If it's a product of rape, do you only accept the abortion after it's been through court? Do you take the persons word for it?

 

[ElectricG]

But why not?

What do you base your valuations on?



So the trolley problem is, that the train is on course to kill five people. There is a switch that will redirect the train, where it will kill one person.
The dilemma is that you must make a choice.
Either you do nothing, and the tragedy occurs.
Or you directly intervene and your actions kill one person.



View attachment 1295565


What if it was only one person on both tracks?
Would you intervene, killing one person to save the other.
Or would you just let it happen?



I don't think the 'being witnessed' should have any impact.




I'm just trying to understand your position.
You're against abortion, but you make exceptions?

If it's a product of rape, do you only accept the abortion after it's been through court? Do you take the persons word for it?

My valuations are based on the fact that there are many facets to why killing is wrong. We have a baseline belief that killing is wrong and many components that underpin it. If we kill someone we are: causing grief to their loved ones, erasing all of their experiences, inflicting pain and distress on them, erasing their potential to experience happiness in the future, etc. I accept that many of these considerations are diminished in the case of an unborn baby - though the last one I mentioned remains fully intact.

I understand the trolley metaphor and dilemma - it’s all in my response. It is not clear from your image, however, what lie the points are in before the intervention.

The “witnesses” thing doesn’t affect the net loss of life but contributes to the severity of the act. That one person will watch you switch the tracks and you have to be able to stomach it do perform the act. Is a world where anyone could do this without hesitation a better world?

Yes, I’m against abortions but I think there a reasonable exceptions. As for the courts thing, I dunno mate, don’t really care.

 

[CM86]

Yes, I’m against abortions but I think there a reasonable exceptions. As for the courts thing, I dunno mate, don’t really care.

But you must care.

You support abortion "if the pregnancy is the product of rape". But how do you determine that a rape has occurred?