Why I oppose Roe V Wade
Posts
Total:
92
-->
@TheUnderdog
This for a class or something?
-->
@TheUnderdog
I agree. What a great way to increase the Democratic base. 75% of women requesting abortion in the US are in poverty or in the low income bracket. The poorest 12% of women account for almost 50% of abortions and the poorest 30% for 75% of abortions.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Due to opposing slavery, I will always be pro-choice.
Contention 1:
I stand by personhood mattering more than the mere fact of DNA (you have at least added the presence of brain tissue, which does pre-refute the fun what do you save from a fire scenario).
Contention 2:
I always hate the slut shaming arguments... Anyways, a willing abortion causes zero harm to any person; whereas once a person exists (for simplicity, when the hypothetical child is born), then duty exists tied to the harm caused in the case of neglect. Additionally, your argument here simplifies the burdens of pregnancy down to just the labor pains; put simply, pregnancy trashes mother's body.
General Rebuttal 3: Yes. Absolutely, Yes!! The penalty for abortion should be a mandatory kidney donation paid for by the man that impregnated the female (to save a life to make up for the life that was taken) and sterilization which would be endured by the female (to prevent you from having an abortion again).
This is misogynistic to the insane degree. You want to forcibly sterilize women AND steal their kidneys. For this argument to even be consistent, the man should also suffer the same... Then you go on to suggest actional slavery for anyone who isn't rich... I'm really hoping this whole thing was written as satire; but with how this is going, I will not bother getting to whatever conclusions you put at the end.
-->
@FLRW
What a great way to increase the Democratic base.
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.
-->
@Barney
Due to opposing slavery, I will always be pro-choice.
Strikes me more as fulfilling a contractual obligation than slavery, personally.
-->
@FLRW
I agree. What a great way to increase the Democratic base. 75% of women requesting abortion in the US are in poverty or in the low income bracket. The poorest 12% of women account for almost 50% of abortions and the poorest 30% for 75% of abortions.
The vast majority of abortions are black babies too.
If Republicans have their way with Roe v Wade, America will be a Black Nation within a few decades.
To ban any action or circumstance, the burden of proof in a free society rests on those advocating the authoritative stance.
It's good to see some sanity left in the world.
A female who gets pregnant has the same obligations to a fetus that a deadbeat dad has to his children.
Insisting that all assertions to be integrated into a coherent body of knowledge or rejected, even better.
Yes. Absolutely, Yes!! The penalty for abortion should be a mandatory kidney donation paid for by the man that impregnated the female (to save a life to make up for the life that was taken) and sterilization which would be endured by the female (to prevent you from having an abortion again).
This is some Solomon shit, and therefore makes more sense than most modern sentencing guidelines.
As an anti-Roe V Wade male who isn’t married (and doesn’t want to marry because women are economic leeches), I 100% Agree. Extend this logic to prochoice males as well to minimize the abortion rate. Ban the anti-Roe V Wade males from having sex outside of wedlock, encourage the pro-Roe V Wade males to follow. Exceptions if they get a vasectomy, as vasectomies for sexually active people are the least painful way to end abortion.
If the punishment is severe there is no need for overbearing preventative measures. A combination of contraceptives and condoms is extremely effective. Babies are not (in almost every case) slipping through them, "lazy" people are "forgetting" things. No need for self-mutilation unless you really can't stand condoms and you really don't trust the women to take the pill.
Furthermore "sex" is wider than potentially procreative acts.
---------------
There is something of an error in all of this though. Arguing for and against abortion in the vague mix of moral context and social-utility context misses the really important context that this was a supreme court interpretation of the constitution.
It is not for the supreme court to consider morality or social utility, if a judge says it is their place that judge is corrupting the system. Their job is to read the law accurately, and reject laws that violate higher tiers of law (such as the US constitution).
The claim of Roe v Wade (and subsequent decisions) is that the US constitution prohibits laws against abortion which is objectively and absolutely false. Any and all arguments that it does collapse to absurdity.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Strikes me more as fulfilling a contractual obligation than slavery
If someone chose to move to a commune with that as a rule, sure.
-->
@Barney
I don't have the time or the energy to address everything you said, but the following applies:
You want to forcibly sterilize women AND steal their kidneys. For this argument to even be consistent, the man should also suffer the same.
I argued that the man would be the one donating a kidney and the female would get sterilized. #Equality!
But abortion needs a fair punishment if it is to be banned.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Thank you for the clarification.
Why would you not sterilize the man? Granted, the second abortion to which he's declared the father would make it a moot point.
-->
@Barney
If someone chose to move to a commune with that as a rule, sure.
A commune and a country really aren't much different
-->
@bmdrocks21
Consent is the big difference.
Imagine getting arrested for driving, because the country you're born into declares that your penis makes it a crime for you to operate a car (or get an education).
-->
@Barney
Consent is the big difference.Imagine getting arrested for driving, because the country you're born into declares that your penis makes it a crime for you to operate a car (or get an education).
To an extent, but staying in America (or any specific state with a set of abortion laws) is also by consent. We don't force you to stay in. In fact, I'd bet there are more active pressures to not leave a commune than the US.
And I am not one to support Middle Eastern driving regulations or societal norms of education
Not entirely sure how that relates to abortion restrictions, though.
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, that is why we need Ketanji Brown Jackson on the Supreme Court.
-->
@Barney
Good point. The man should be sterilized too. I'll update my plan soon. I'm just busy right now.
-->
@bmdrocks21
The comparison was in the puritanical sexist laws.
I can use a real world example to prove that being born somewhere is not consent:
In Iraq when rebels imprisoned their own families to starve them to death if said rebels did not return from fighting us, with the threat of murdering the families if they disobeyed... Clearly at least the children neither consented to being starved to death, nor of being gunned down for disobedience.
Tying this directly back to the topic:
Imagine the OPs proposed laws went into effect, and the police round you up for organ harvesting due to an unfounded accusation. I hope we would both agree that you have not given consent merely by breathing in whatever country would have such laws.
-->
@FLRW
To keep killing Black Babies under legal no-fault abortion choices? umm ok I guess?
-->
@FLRW
You can't kill someone for voting democrat in the future.
-->
@Barney
I always hate the slut shaming arguments
The law slut shames deadbeat dads by telling them, "If you didn't want to pay child support, don't have sex". Slut shaming for both genders is good.
Additionally, your argument here simplifies the burdens of pregnancy down to just the labor pains; put simply, pregnancy trashes mother's body.
And paying child support trashes a deadbeat dad's wallet at a comparable rate to the frequency of pregnancy trashing a female's body. Other people's bodies aren't priceless to me and I don't expect my body to be viewed as priceless by strangers.
-->
@Barney
I can use a real world example to prove that being born somewhere is not consent:In Iraq when rebels imprisoned their own families to starve them to death if said rebels did not return from fighting us, with the threat of murdering the families if they disobeyed... Clearly at least the children neither consented to being starved to death, nor of being gunned down for disobedience.
That is a strong example, in general:
Express consent requires that an action is taken to indicate intention. Fetus's don't take any action to be born. Implied consent requires that an objection is possible, also absent. Therefore fetuses don't consent to be born, therefore the baby doesn't consent to a certain citizenship, and at no point from that time is consent sought.
I have seen it argued that implied consent forms at some point because the person doesn't run away, but implied consent cannot be established if the only form of objection accepted is from a set of options smaller than the morally entitled one.
For example, if someone is enslaved on a plantation; there is a way out namely suicide. The failure to commit suicide does not constitute implied consent. The options to get out of the situation are being limited by force/or deception. Furthermore if someone is enslaved in their own house staying does not imply they consent to be enslaved, they have a right to stay.
So too with 'authorities' claiming territory. In order for staying in a territory to constitute consent to submit to that authority it must be morally established that the person doesn't have a right to stay in that territory in the first place.
I have never seen such an argument, thus I conclude there is not now, nor has there been, nor will there be implied consent to laws or territorial authority of any kind. Consent to social contracts must be express or there is no consent.
-->
@Barney
I stand by personhood mattering more than the mere fact of DNA
At what stage does a human being posses personhood?
-->
@Bones
Legally in the USA, personhood begins at birth.
Philosophically, I could go deeper; but that would get pretty far into side tangent territory.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well said.
-->
@TheUnderdog
By definition a deadbeat dad is someone who does not pay their child support.
-->
@Barney
Legally in the USA, personhood begins at birth.
What factor of birth grants moral agency to born babies which fetus' do not possess.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Good point. The man should be sterilized too. I'll update my plan soon. I'm just busy right now.
What a crock.
What humanity needs is mandatory --and of course voluntary--- condoms designed for men and women, as well as pills that function as temporary abortion of early fertilization and/or of sperm quality and count.
In conjunction with the above, humanity needs educational truths ---not disingenuous republicans and religious non-sense--- and transparency of humans over population effects on the ecological environment that sustain us all on this space-ship, out in a hostile space.
Safe and consenting sex is healthy and should be promoted as sanity for humans on Earth.
-->
@Barney
Imagine the OPs proposed laws went into effect, and the police round you up for organ harvesting due to an unfounded accusation. I hope we would both agree that you have not given consent merely by breathing in whatever country would have such laws.
Yeah, I think we can find some common ground in the anti-organ-harvesting realm.
What I find equally shocking is OP's presumption that the only reason abortions happen is because of deadbeat dads that need to be forcibly sterilized (the seven times the term 'dad' is mentioned, it is preceded by 'deadbeat'). 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.
-->
@ebuc
What humanity needs is population control.
Trouble is though, as we see things all too well at the moment, humanitarian integrity is not a species phenomenon.
So for now, we still need to breed armies.
-->
@TheUnderdog
The core problem with your whole case is the obvious cost to benefits analysis.
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), that seems unconnected to the intent of your proposal; not to mention, 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.