What factor of birth grants moral agency to born babies which fetus' do not possess.
What humanity needs is population control.
So having finally had the opportunity to read your argument your summary is men's money is important, women's bodies are not.
You also seem to think as long as a man gives a woman money he doesn't have to parent those children but a woman should certainly be present and parent her children because she's a woman.
You are proposing massive harms of mutilating people who have harmed no one.
It'd be about as sensible as declaring those punishments for anyone who wears white after labor day, or just do a lottery system.
While there is a mild benefit of more donor kidneys available (most of these forced donations would just become medical waste)
it would certainly cause backlash against organ donations in general.
It seems like the group that would benefit the most, are sadists who get their jollies from other people being in pain.
Seems quite odd to automatically make a presumption of a guy being a POS because someone else did something.
I'm not sure if threats will stop sex, but if we ever get dictator Alec, I'm afraid we'll find out.
The female who aborted harmed the kid and the deadbeat dad harmed the women by getting her pregnant.
The female who aborted harmed the kid and the deadbeat dad harmed the women by getting her pregnant.Neither are inherently harms.
The majority of all abortions occur before it's even a fetus.
As for her getting pregnant to begin with: The vast majority of sex is consensual.
I thought you opposed Roe V Wade, so you would want a penalty for abortion (because if abortion is banned, a punishment is required and punishing the abortionists won't be enough because if a fetus is a human being, each abortionist has caused the death of thousands of human beings).
You threaten to forcibly sterilize men because of something a woman they had sex with did.
The difference is I don't 'threaten' innocent parties.
So putting us in the same boat is about as accurate as calling both people who support fines for violating speed limits and others who support cutting off thieves' arms for stealing "authoritarian".
If they didn't want kids, they shouldn't have had sex. I've been living this value my whole life. Why is it hard for other people to live prudish values (being a prude is a good thing.)?
You threaten to forcibly sterilize men because of something a woman they had sex with did. Since they don't have control over whether or not she gets an abortion, that's just blatant coercion.
Is there any point at which you would oppose abortion? Or would a woman who is 8 months pregnant be permitted to abort the child under your preferred rule set?
My preferred standard would largely consist of education, birth control availability, medical care, etc. You know, things that would actually prevent abortions (I know, I keep wrongly acting like that is the goal of the pro-life movement).
The relevance of this is fleeting due to rarity, but yes, I would be fine with mandated C-Sections for any viable third trimester fetus... Barring exceptional circumstances, like some crazed cult took over the local government and prevented access until then.
I do think that if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade in the upcoming term that will greatly improve Democrat's odds for retaining both houses of Congress and perhaps incentivize a movement to pass a privacy amendment to the Constitution.
I'll repeat myself, you can have continuous orgies without ever causing a pregnancy with some basic precautions. Prudishness is fully disconnected with pregnancies when brain is engaged.
That is a thin criticism, suppose the man was exempted if he was willing to raise the child and notarized his objection to the abortion.
If you are really worried about a female you had sex with getting an abortion, just don't have sex with her.
The females aren't the horny ones usually.
If a man doesn't want kids, he shouldn't have sex.
Anti Roe V Wade people have been preaching, "If you don't want children, don't have sex" to females this entire time.
Your lack of life experience is quite apparent
He very well may. Heck, both might then the woman could change her mind.
And how many of them threatened aborters with stealing their kidneys?
The west has birth control fully accessible that is free for everyone who can't afford it and reasonably priced for those that can afford it. We still have 800,000 abortions a year.
Birth control produces bad side effects for women and the women should not be forced to endure the side effects from birth control just so a man could have sex.
That's why I hope I remain a virgin forever (since I don't want kids) and any male without a vasectomy who doesn't want kids also should remain a virgin forever.
I mean it is the GOAL of the pro life movement. Whether or not they’re effective at it is debatable but they aren’t opposing abortion just because they hate women or whatever. I agree that it’s better to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place
Honest question… when you see this video, how do you feel?
Twelve weeks is pretty early
If you saw a fetus as a baby you would have the same position we do,
-->@oromagiI do think that if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade in the upcoming term that will greatly improve Democrat's odds for retaining both houses of Congress and perhaps incentivize a movement to pass a privacy amendment to the Constitution.It’s already been effectively struck down imo. Didn’t they allow Texas 6 week abortion ban to remain in place? That’s effectively a ban on abortion…six weeks is like two weeks after a missed period. A lot of women wouldn’t even know they were pregnant at that point^if they let the Texas law stand on just a technicality like lack of standing or something what I wrote above is wrong. But it’s been chipped away at for decades now.
I think a constitutional amendment formalizing a citizen's right to privacy, protection from govt control over fundamentally personal decision-making, etc. is necessary and appropriate.
I don't know why people continuously fail to realize that moral disagreements have no legal solutions.
I don't know why people continuously fail to realize that moral disagreements have no legal solutions.Fortunately, moral disagreements require no legal resolution. A politician's morality may not be constitutionally imposed by state instruments on other citizens.
There is not a single law now or ever that does derive its claimed authority from a moral premise nor is any law by definition anything less than a matter of violence.
If you look at the world around you and wonder why no political disagreements are ever solved
You say "may not constitutionally" yea where in the US constitution (and that was the immediate context) is that? It's not there,
If the answer isn't moral it's irrelevant.
There are no problems without goals and no goals without values.
You said "is necessary and appropriate." about a constitutional amendment. Necessary for what?
Appropriate for what ideal outcome? Because people want it? Why do they want it? Why should their wants matter?
"patriot act, terrorism isn't a private matter", "killing babies isn't a private matter", "sodomy isn't a private matter".
Privacy.... only makes any sense as an implication of liberty...
