What overturning Roe v. Wade could mean for birth control access, maternal care - by Dia
Jason Moyer on 24/5/2022 at 18:33
The legality of abortion should have nothing to do with anyone's personal moral views on it. The fact of the matter is it doesn't affect anyone but the person making that choice. If you think abortion is immoral or unholy or whatever then don't have one. It should be an issue of privacy and self-determination not morality.
It's always weird that the "omg, keep gubmn't out mah life" people support the most personally restrictive bullshit.
Nicker on 24/5/2022 at 19:58
Quote:
I would think that, if humans are no more exceptional that cows or dogs or crows, that you would approve of war, famine, pestilence, and destruction--especially when it focused on the offending species. Covid, for instance-- I'd imagine that you're all for it if you truly believe human exceptionalism is a myth.
You are really good at imagining what others mean without listening to them. All species are exceptional. All individuals are exceptional. All snowflakes are unique. So what?
Quote:
Pregnancy no now way equals slavery, and saying such minimizes both a pregnant woman and victims of slavery. Get to that in a minute.
Being forced to carry a fetus in service to the moral assertions of another person, certainly is slavery. Control over the reproductive rights of slaves is a cornerstone of owning people.
Not your body, not your choice. You can be offended all day long, it doesn't matter.
Pyrian on 24/5/2022 at 20:13
If you intentionally strap your kid down and remove their kidneys, the government has no right to demand one of your kidneys to save their life, even if it's the only possible way to save them. If the police showed up and shot you dead on the spot, they still couldn't take your kidney even then unless you'd signed a donor card. Your guilty corpse has more bodily rights than a pregnant woman.
uncadonego on 24/5/2022 at 21:44
Quote Posted by Draxil
In regards to other responses that I won't bother to quote:
*I never brought God into this conversation and don't intend to. Opposition to abortion doesn't rely on faith, contrary to what proponents of abortion believe. The secular justification for defending human life is quite strong enough, and there are many pro-life atheists.
Moloch wasn't an Old Testament reference? So was mine.
You're in the wrong room. You want the room down the hall.
Numbnutz...I don't believe in abortion either. I wanted all the kids that came my way too.
Try to separate that feeling from thinking your beliefs should be forced upon the rest of the world.
Draxil on 25/5/2022 at 02:23
Quote Posted by rachel
You are skewing the debate because you are not approaching it with the right perspective. The question isn't about being pro-abortion, it's about being pro-
CHOICE. A
CHOICE that is
NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. To think otherwise is supremely arrogant.
No, you're just not recognizing that the "perspective" is what the debate is about. Everyone focuses on the choice of the mother without recognizing that there is another life involved, or that the other life deserves no consideration.
Quote:
Jason Moyer:
The legality of abortion should have nothing to do with anyone's personal moral views on it. The fact of the matter is it doesn't affect anyone but the person making that choice. If you think abortion is immoral or unholy or whatever then don't have one. It should be an issue of privacy and self-determination not morality.
It's always weird that the "omg, keep gubmn't out mah life" people support the most personally restrictive bullshit.
If you think murder or rape or kidnapping is immoral, then don't do it. Easy enough, right? "No, because another person is victimized!" Right, as they are in abortion. This whole friggin' debate is about the fact that mothers aren't the only person affected by abortion.
Quote:
Nicker:
You are really good at imagining what others mean without listening to them. All species are exceptional. All individuals are exceptional. All snowflakes are unique. So what?
The term "human exceptionalism" is usually used to indicate that the species
homo sapiens has a higher value than that of other species. If you didn't mean that when you called human exceptionalism an "arrogant myth", then you should have been clearer. I agree that all individuals are exceptional, even the ones that haven't been born yet.
Quote:
Being forced to carry a fetus in service to the moral assertions of another person, certainly is slavery. Control over the reproductive rights of slaves is a cornerstone of owning people.
Not your body, not your choice. You can be offended all day long, it doesn't matter.
It's not a moral assertion, it's a biological one. A zygote is a human being in the very earliest stages of development. There is no question that it is a member of the same species as the mother and father. There is no question that it is living. It is dependent, as every other mammalian species that I'm aware of, on the mother for nourishment and growth, but is a separate individual of the same species. I assert that without question or reservation, and don't have to resort to some sort of metaphysical throat clearing and arbitrary definition of when it is or isn't worthy of the rights enjoyed by every other member of the species that's more developed. Let me ask you a direct question, nicker: At what point do you think abortion should be regulated, and why? It's a really, really, simple question and deserves a straightforward answer. A follow up, how do you feel about sex specific abortion? It seems to me that you shouldn't have an issue with it, but I'd love to hear your answer.
Quote:
Pyrian:
If you intentionally strap your kid down and remove their kidneys, the government has no right to demand one of your kidneys to save their life, even if it's the only possible way to save them. If the police showed up and shot you dead on the spot, they still couldn't take your kidney even then unless you'd signed a donor card. Your guilty corpse has more bodily rights than a pregnant woman.
I'll put this in the simplest possible terms, because it seems like you're still missing my point. There are two lives. Two persons. Two beings that have rights. A newborn is every bit as dependent on it's mother or the care of another for the first several years of life. In the not-so-far-fetched hypothetical situation that no one is willing to care for a newborn, it's "unwanted", does it not have rights? Is it disposable? Peter Singer says yes, and logic would say that if you support abortion, you do, too.
Quote:
In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood.
Similar to his argument for abortion rights, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[57]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living".[58] Singer has clarified that his "view of when life begins isn't very different from that of opponents of abortion." He deems it not "unreasonable to hold that an individual human life begins at conception. If it doesn't, then it begins about 14 days later, when it is no longer possible for the embryo to divide into twins or other multiples." Singer disagrees with abortion rights opponents in that he does not "think that the fact that an embryo is a living human being is sufficient to show that it is wrong to kill it." Singer wishes "to see American jurisprudence, and the national abortion debate, take up the question of which capacities a human being needs to have in order for it to be wrong to kill it" as well as "when, in the development of the early human being, these capacities are present."
Good company to keep.
Quote:
uncadonego:
Try to separate that feeling from thinking your beliefs should be forced upon the rest of the world.
We call that "law", and we have many that are forced upon the rest of the world. It usually forbids things like murder, rape, incest, and often includes things that aren't directly harmful to anyone else, like polygamy, drug use, the possession of child pornography, and the like. A court ruling that was treated like law, forbidding individual states to regulate abortion, is about to be over turned (I hope). Now, instead of relying on the courts to get your preferred world, you'll have to rely on executive branches of government that are opting (
https://www.route-fifty.com/health-human-services/2022/05/prosecutors-who-wont-enforce-post-roe-v-wade-state-abortion-trigger-laws/367244/) not to enforce state law to get your way.
Speaking of executive branches, the current law of the United States states that a man who causes a woman to have an abortion can be held liable for murder. So, if Suzy is 6 weeks pregnant and is mugged and beaten on her way to an abortion clinic, he's guilty of assault and homicide. If he had waited 45 minutes it would have just been assault. Tell me that's not messed up.
uncadonego on 25/5/2022 at 02:38
Annoying dumbass. You just keep obnoxiously repeating yourself. Everyone has heard your point of view. Over and over. Now shut up.
Jason Moyer on 25/5/2022 at 02:46
Quote Posted by Draxil
If you think murder or rape or kidnapping is immoral, then don't do it. Easy enough, right?
Oh my god, you're right! I'm completely incapable of distinguishing between violent crime and victimless crime!
Nicker on 25/5/2022 at 03:41
Quote:
Everyone focuses on the choice of the mother without recognizing that there is another life involved, or that the other life deserves no consideration.
Everyone? After however many years you have been banging that drum, these simplified strawmen are your best understanding of the other side?
Let's assume that a fetus is a person. Now the question is, which person has the most rights, the woman or the baby? I say the woman. You say the baby. Then I ask, is it YOUR body carrying the baby. And you say, no it is not. And I say, then STFU because it's not your choice.
Forcing others to abide by your choice for their body is SLAVERY.
Quote:
If he had waited 45 minutes it would have just been assault. Tell me that's not messed up.
Daddy rapes his daughter. You force her to have her half brother. Tell me that's not messed up.
mopgoblin on 25/5/2022 at 12:30
I didn't read all of that big nasty wall of text, because I've got more self-respect than that, but I do see we're at the point in the thread where the anti-choice misogynist (who I suspect no one actually wants to talk to) tries to draw a parallel between abortion and rape.
Now honestly that says more about him than I ever could, but I will say that it makes me think. It makes me think that if it came down to it, I'd personally use quite a lot of force to prevent rape, whether the rapist was targeting me or someone else. So how much force would he, personally, be willing to use to stop abortion?
