Why I think I have become a supporter of Roe V Wade

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 49
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
Abortions almost entirely come from unwanted pregnencies.  Both parties know this so they offer different solutions on how to reduce unwanted pregnencies.

Disclaimer: I refer to "pro lifers" as "opponents of Roe V Wade" because they aren't pro life for every life usually and I refer to "pro choicers" as supporters of Roe V Wade because they aren't pro choice for every choice usually.

The pro Roe V Wade solution is to make contraception free.  The left cares more about reducing unwanted pregnencies than they do about reducing abortions, but they are fine with reducing abortions if it results in less unwanted pregnencies and they have realized that free contraception reduces both unwanted pregnencies and abortions.

The anti Roe V Wade solution to reduce unwanted pregnencies is just to not have sex.  This advice is so bad that not even most people that oppose Roe V Wade follow their own advice.  97% of Americans don't "wait until marriage" and this includes at least 94% of people that oppose Roe V Wade.  Most people that oppose Roe V Wade don't follow their own advice.

Now consider the following scnaraeao: Lets say a white person wants to enslave a black person for 9 months in order to save his life (kind of like how an unwanted fetus requires the slavery of a female for 9 months to save their life).  Would this be morally acceptable?  No; it would not be.  The 13th amendment makes Roe V Wade the law because slavery (even to save the life of a white person or a fetus) is unconstitutional.

But opponents of Roe V Wade would argue that the slavery and the unwanted pain from pregnency are morally acceptable to save a child.  However, if I were to ask many of these anti Roe V Wade people if it would be morally acceptable to vastectomize every male, freeze his sperm, and if he ever wants kids, he uses some of the sperm that was frozen to get the kid (all assuming the female consents to be impregnanted), they would claim it's a violation of their freedom.

This view to me makes no sense.  You think forced vastectomies to save a child's life are tyrannical, but that forced childbirth to save a child's life is morally acceptable?  I'm pretty sure the vastectomy is significantly less of a sacrifice and it achieves the same goal.  In addition, nobody is arguing that an unwanted pregnency is beneficial for the female that has it.  But I can argue that vasectomizing all men and freezing their sperm when they want to have kids produces long term benefits for the men that get them.  For example, now they don't have to worry about pregnency, so assuming they and their partner get tested for STIs and it's proven they don't have any STIs, they can have significantly more consensual sex and not have to worry about unwanted pregnency.

The main reasons why I encourage abstinence is because of the fear of unwanted pregnencies and the fear of STIs.  However, with a vastectomy, the first fear becomes obsolete, and with STI testing and treatment when applicable, the 2nd fear also becomes obsolete.  At this point, some benefits to unprotected sex are below:



#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Every thread you write is either extreme satire or the ramblings of someone who should not be in any position of power. Not sure how else to put it. You don't understand how to lead without being tyrannical.
Topic's author
#3
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
@RM

How so?
#4
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Wouldn’t it have been much simpler to just say that a person has a right to life but not the right to someone else’s body?
Topic's author
#5
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
There will be people that argue the right of the unborn child's life exceeds the right to maternal comfort and convenience.  I'm just pointing out other examples where convenience (such as not getting a vastectomy) outweighs the unborn child's right to not die.  I like either being principled or justifying the times where I am not as with politics, being unprincipled is inevitable in anyone that both is anti suffering and anti tyranny.  An example of this is with gun control.  If you support it, your violating your anti tyranny principle since you want the government involved in people's lives.  If you oppose it, your violating your anti suffering principle due to the (unfounded) fear that comes with guns.  Being unprincipled is inevitible and acceptable if you can find a way to justify it.
#6
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
You've been thinking about this a lot. Sometimes you have to work a thought through to say you really had it at all. I'm not sure how I feel about enforced vasectomies. I am in favor of offering them freely and the same about reversing them but I am not ready to endorse removing agency in that way. Also what if there is a disaster and all the sperm are lost? That seems like a bad idea biologically... also also that would make procreation much more labor intensive and expensive and I thought you were in favor of not saddling people with indebtedness they do not agree to.
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Wouldn’t it have been much simpler to just say that a person has a right to life but not the right to someone else’s body?

Wouldn't that make the draft unconstitutional?
#8
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@secularmerlin
'reversing them' yeah that aint so easy, you completley sever the thing connecting the balls to the body, it can only be reversed if it was done incomplete to begin with.

You can reverse them to produce a little sperm but there'll still be a huge issue as your balls got used to never releasing sperm that becomes seven over many cycles and so the habit the body has to not bother turning sperm into semen is very hard to undo and lowers the potency of your semen significantly.

#9
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
In general I think men ought to take more responsibility for contraception so don't expect much sympathy from me.
#10
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
The anti Roe V Wade solution to reduce unwanted pregnencies is just to not have sex.  This advice is so bad that not even most people that oppose Roe V Wade follow their own advice.  
What's a better deterrence, knowing that you can have sex as many times as you want and abort as many babies as you want, or knowing that you have to go through a full term pregnancy each time you have sex irresponsibly? 
#11
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Wouldn't that make the draft unconstitutional?
No
#12
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Bones
What's a better deterrence, knowing that you can have sex as many times as you want and abort as many babies as you want, or knowing that you have to go through a full term pregnancy each time you have sex irresponsibly? 
Why do you think deterrence should be the primary goal? Is it your position that people shouldn’t have sex?

#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
It would probably make child support unconstitutional too. Imagine a world where you can't force a body to labor for another body against their will.

Love to see the lawyers hash that out. The "Right to keep your body from unwillingly supporting others" could go a VERY long way.

It would be a landmark win for men's rights, as currently, there's no option for men to terminate an unwanted fetus. But with a "right to body" clause in the constitution, men can keep the government from mandating 18 years of support vs the 9 months a woman endures.
#14
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Double_R
Why do you think deterrence should be the primary goal? Is it your position that people shouldn’t have sex?
It is my position that people should not do anything which leads to the death of human lives. 
#15
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Bones
If I refuse to have sex with someone who could reproduce with me then the egg dying via period and sperm (which regularly die) dying remove the possibility of that combination of DNA ever realistically coming into existence and living.

How is this not killing off a potential life? I am asking because the act of abortion before the brain and such have developed in the foetus is actually no more brutally denying the entity of life than not conceiving it or taking a plan B pill before it became a foetus.
#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
Let's be honest.

The same old argument

Because all humans are variably and selectively moral.

And enjoy disagreeing and having sex.


And then there's this hypothetical GOD bloke floating about constantly worrying about sinners.

Just saying.

Never seen him myself though.


Or is it people worrying about a hypothetical GOD bloke who might hypothetically be worrying about sinners.

Anyway, let's go and slaughter the fatted calf.
#17
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
It would probably make child support unconstitutional too. Imagine a world where you can't force a body to labor for another body against their will.
The government isn’t commandeering the man’s body, no one is forcing the man to lay down on a table while he unwillingly donates a kidney. He has the full right to his body, he can come up with that money any way he wants. What they’re forcing is the man to give up a portion of his income so that other tax payers don’t have to. It’s not the same thing.

Like I’ve said many times before, the abortion debate  will always come down to whether you see the fetus as a human being. Every argument after that will be painted by your answer.
#18
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Bones
It is my position that people should not do anything which leads to the death of human lives. 
Then your position entails denying one of the most fundamental elements of human nature.
#19
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Being unprincipled is inevitible and acceptable if you can find a way to justify it.
The idea of being principled means that you live your life by set of fundamental values that you have essentially turned into rules. But life doesn’t always give you that choice. Your “rules” will sometimes clash and you will be forced to choose. That fact has no bearing on whether you believe in those values and whether you follow them.

#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
I'm only explaining why a "right to body" could never be such a thing in a functioning society.
Topic's author
#21
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not advocating for mandatory vastectomies, although I want one for me personally.  I'm saying that mandatory vastectomies to save children from dying is less tyranical than mandatory childbirth to save children from dying.

I don't know how the sperm would be lost in every location.  It might disappear in a few locations, but definitely not all of them.  People that are worried about it can freeze their sperm in multiple sperm banks if they don't want all of their sperm to get lost.
Topic's author
#22
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Bones
If your solution is, "If you don't want kids, don't have sex", realize that even most pro lifers don't obey that advice.  They won't abort; they are worried about unwanted pregnency.  Despite this, even most pro lifers still have premarital sex.

Mandating childbirth to save children is more tyrannical than mandating vastectomies.  You'd figure people wanting to save the unborn child would advocate for mandating vastectomies.

All I'm looking for is a little consistency.
#23
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm not advocating for mandatory vastectomies, although I want one for me personally.  I'm saying that mandatory vastectomies to save children from dying is less tyranical than mandatory childbirth to save children from dying.

I don't know how the sperm would be lost in every location.  It might disappear in a few locations, but definitely not all of them.  People that are worried about it can freeze their sperm in multiple sperm banks if they don't want all of their sperm to get lost.
Thank you. That clears your position up. I understand now.
#24
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Double_R
It is my position that people should not do anything which leads to the death of human lives. 
Then your position entails denying one of the most fundamental elements of human nature.
It is in the human nature for people to have sex to procreate in hopes of expanding the gene pool. It is not in the human nature to procreate without the create part. 
#25
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your solution is, "If you don't want kids, don't have sex", realize that even most pro lifers don't obey that advice.  They won't abort; they are worried about unwanted pregnency. 
Well that's my advice. 

I understand that it is not perfect, but consider it like a seatbelt. It does not alleviate all of the possible harm, but it lowers it nonetheless. 

#26
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm only explaining why a "right to body" could never be such a thing in a functioning society.
But you’re not talking about the same thing and relying on a slippery slope fallacy. The right to your own body doesn’t mean that obligations cannot be imposed upon you. The right that I’m talking about is a thing in our society and has been for a very long time, at least when it comes to any and everything else except abortion.
#27
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Bones
It is in the human nature for people to have sex to procreate in hopes of expanding the gene pool. It is not in the human nature to procreate without the create part. 
No, it’s not. Our drive to have sex is built into us, it is not something born out of a personal desire to procreate. If it were we would not be having this conversation.
#28
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Double_R
It is in the human nature for people to have sex to procreate in hopes of expanding the gene pool. It is not in the human nature to procreate without the create part. 
No, it’s not. Our drive to have sex is built into us, it is not something born out of a personal desire to procreate.
The purpose of sex drive is to expand the gene pool. This is noncontroversial. The purpose of sex drive isn't to incentivise you to create and then kill your creation .

#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
The right to your own body doesn’t mean that obligations cannot be imposed upon you.

Like forcing a woman to labor for 9 months?

Or do you think there is no physical labor involved in carrying a child?
#30
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Bones
The purpose of sex drive is to expand the gene pool.
Demonstrate this claim. Who decided this?