Roe v Wade is about PRIVACY!

[Swizzington]

The most fundamental right of an individual is the right to life.

And your response clearly shows your lack of understanding in regards to the conversation. Which is fine, remain ignorant if that helps you sleep at night.

Every person has the right to life, and while I am all for small government, I am also for government protecting life, our most basic right.

In the words of Ronald Reagan, I can't help but realize that every person who supports abortion is already born.

This is hilarious. Are you a woman, btw?

[Antiganon]

Your first two lines are correct, smoking is an act like sex, and pregnancy is a consequence like cancer. However that is where your thought process derails from mine.

I am sure you are going to enlighten me as to how I am wrong and you are right, because reasons.

Unlike cancer, pregnancy is not a bad thing.

This is a fantastic example of your opinion. It is by no means applicable to anyone else, ever. Other people may share this opinion, but pregnancy at certain times can undoubtedly be a bad thing. Immediately after losing your job, for example. Or when you are about to travel overseas and may not have adequate access to prenatal care.

It is how our species continues to be here, by bringing new life into existence. Cancer, on the other hand, is death.

Objectively true, no argument from me.

My entire purpose for bringing up smoking (or drinking) is to show the point that every action has consequences. This is the same reason as to why I bring up stealing a car or robbing somebody. These actions have consequences.

This point is consistent.

However, sex and pregnancy are entirely unique to themselves.

This point is not consistent. Choosing to have sex is a personal choice that a person has made, no different from any other choice except in the details of the potential consequence.

Pregnancies and bringing new life into this world is how we maintain our species, pass on our genes as it will, through sex. There is nothing similar in regards to this.

Invitro fertilization, human cloning (not yet, but someday), surrogacy - all viable methods of maintaining our species and passing on genes.

To your question to me, because pregnancy only lasts 9 months, which is a blip on the radar of life, while cancer will kill you. The consequences are different, and have different natures entirely. But that is not the real topic at hand.

9 months is a really long time if you didn't want to be pregnant in the first place. Also, pregnancy and childbirth complications can absolutely kill you. The mortality rate for cancer patients is about 171.2 per 100k. The mortality rate for pregnant women in childbirth (not including complications causing mortality during pregnancy) is about 18.4 per 100k.

Theoretically, not including pregnancy and breastfeeding induced infertility, one could have 4 or 5 children in the same amount of time as a 4 year degree. So simply carrying one pregnancy to term is not as long of a time as people like to make it seem.

Irrelevant. Go through a pregnancy, experience the irrevocable changes upon your body, and then tell me it isn't a big deal.

And while yes being pregnant may be seen as an inconvenience, it hardly measures up towards cancer in that regards. In most cases, especially with today's medical and technological advancements, death due to pregnancy and labor is rare.

Addressed above. Also note that the maternal death rate as of 2013 is more than double what it was in 1986.

That is the difference between my examples and sex/pregnancy. My argument is entirely consistent, you simply did not follow my argument through.

Also, I am still waiting for where in western society women are oppressed and are not equal to men.

There is an example right here in your post.

You are trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. Women are presumably not trying to tell you what you can and can't do with your body.

[Cts53]

This is hilarious. Are you a woman, btw?

What is hillarious was your comment to me and the complete lack of understanding between the difference of a fetus and sperm. And no, I am a guy.

To which I know you will accuse me of trying to insert my opinion into something where "it doesn't belong", completely forgetting the fact that it takes two people (1 man, 1 woman) to get pregnant with a child. As the child is 50% mother and 50% the father, the man also has a say in regards to the wellfare of his child.

Also, as I have mentioned earlier, I view abortion as murder, and just like I would speak out against a murderer, I speak out against abortion.

Fun fact, the march for life in DC is going on today, where thousands of people march in DC in hopes to end the legalization of abortion.

[Moralgy]

What is hillarious was your comment to me and the complete lack of understanding between the difference of a fetus and sperm. And no, I am a guy.

To which I know you will accuse me of trying to insert my opinion into something where "it doesn't belong", completely forgetting the fact that it takes two people (1 man, 1 woman) to get pregnant with a child. As the child is 50% mother and 50% the father, the man also has a say in regards to the wellfare of his child.

Also, as I have mentioned earlier, I view abortion as murder, and just like I would speak out against a murderer, I speak out against abortion.

Fun fact, the march for life in DC is going on today, where thousands of people march in DC in hopes to end the legalization of abortion.

Maybe they should do something more productive with their life, because that isn't gonna happen rofl.

[Cts53]

There is an example right here in your post.

You are trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. Women are presumably not trying to tell you what you can and can't do with your body.

So this is a form of oppression then? Alright, then how about all the men out there who are told they have absolutely no say in regards to the wellfare of their child? That child lives or dies at the whim of the mother. Certainly, that is also a form of oppression, because you are telling a man whether or not he can keep his child.

Also, as I have stated above, it's not entirely their bodies. The child has a different blood type, different DNA, different hormones, different brain, bone and organ structure, and a different heartbeat. The unborn child is it's own being, with it's own body.

If that is your best understanding or example of oppression, I highly suggest you take a look in the middle east. That is oppression to women.

This topic is in regards to the life or death of a new child, not what a woman can or cannot do with her body. If that is your best argument, I suggest you try elsewhere.

[Antiganon]

I also find it patently hilarious that these positions are all held by the typical anti-abortion crusader:

Abstinence-only sex education in schools
Elimination of the birth control mandate from health insurance plans
Elimination of the individual mandate for health insurance
Elimination of funding for Medicaid and CHIP, which would pay for healthcare for pregnant women and their children
Elimination of funding for social service programs that benefit children born to poor families
Elimination of funding for public schools to educate those children

If you are going to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, you could at least keep the social safety net that cares for those children intact.

But I forgot, this isn't about the children, this is about forcing your will on women.

[Cts53]

Maybe they should do something more productive with their life, because that isn't gonna happen rofl.

So by performing a peaceful march on DC for 1 day, suddenly these people are unproductive by your standards? Interesting.

[Musik-Diversity86]

Why are women not simply saying "I reserve my right to privacy" as an answer to all these nutters asking them questions about their private healthcare?

Wouldn't that shut them down quicker then "It's my right to abort!"?

Roe v Wade

"The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."

Griswold v. Connecticut

"Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy."

I would have added something but it seems you already lost this argument.

[Antiganon]

So this is a form of oppression then? Alright, then how about all the men out there who are told they have absolutely no say in regards to the wellfare of their child? That child lives or dies at the whim of the mother. Certainly, that is also a form of oppression, because you are telling a man whether or not he can keep his child.

Also, as I have stated above, it's not entirely their bodies. The child has a different blood type, different DNA, different hormones, different brain, bone and organ structure, and a different heartbeat. The unborn child is it's own being, with it's own body.

If that is your best understanding or example of oppression, I highly suggest you take a look in the middle east. That is oppression to women.

This topic is in regards to the life or death of a new child, not what a woman can or cannot do with her body. If that is your best argument, I suggest you try elsewhere.

That is by no means my best understanding or example of oppression, it's just the one right in front of me as I write this post.

Do you want to talk about equal pay? About the percentage of women in elected office in the US? About the percentage of women in business leadership in the US?

The fetus is its own entity, wholly contained within and dependent upon the woman's body for survival. Scientifically, it is as autonomous as a parasite. It will eventually, if left to grow inside of and feed off of the woman's body, become a person. It is absolutely not a person at that point.

Also, thanks for tacitly conceding the entire rest of my points. I'm glad you can admit when you were wrong.

[Moralgy]

So by performing a peaceful march on DC for 1 day, suddenly these people are unproductive by your standards? Interesting.

It is a waste of time to protest against something that isn't changing, at all. What they are doing is a waste of time and virtue signaling at its core. They just want to show people they hate abortion, not actually change anything because that will never happen.

[Cts53]

That is by no means my best understanding or example of oppression, it's just the one right in front of me as I write this post.

Do you want to talk about equal pay? About the percentage of women in elected office in the US? About the percentage of women in business leadership in the US?

The fetus is its own entity, wholly contained within and dependent upon the woman's body for survival. Scientifically, it is as autonomous as a parasite. It will eventually, if left to grow inside of and feed off of the woman's body, become a person. It is absolutely not a person at that point.

Also, thanks for tacitly conceding the entire rest of my points. I'm glad you can admit when you were wrong.

For one, I didn't concede to your post, I merely responded to the point that stood out the most. I don't care to argue whether pregnancy is a good thing or not, considering for the survival of our species it is a good thing, no matter the opinion. I can always fully reply later if I care enough.

I will say this, your examples show a complete lack of understanding of equality. What you are talking about is equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity, which is actual equality. Everybody is considered, but that does not mean it will be 50-50 across the board.

Welcome to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which made it illegal to pay women less than men based on their gender. The gender "pay gap" has been thoroughly debunked by multiple studies and universities, including harvard.

Just because there isn't "equal representation" of women in high powered CEO jobs or political positions does not show any form of oppression. I never hear of people complaining of the lack of women in other jobs such as deep sea fishing, lumberjacks, and trash haulers. What about the lack of men in daycares, nursing jobs, or jobs such as social workers?

However, I doubt you would call men oppressed.

Once again, I am waiting for that example of women being oppressed in western society.

About the fetus, at what point then do we consider the child to be a person? Considering that different babies grow at different rates, thus the point in which a child can survive outside the womb differs with each case, we can't fully use that point in time to classify them as a person. Nor can we when they are born, as they are well beyond that point.

[Antiganon]

For one, I didn't concede to your post, I merely responded to the point that stood out the most. I don't care to argue whether pregnancy is a good thing or not, considering for the survival of our species it is a good thing, no matter the opinion. I can always fully reply later if I care enough.

I will say this, your examples show a complete lack of understanding of equality. What you are talking about is equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity, which is actual equality. Everybody is considered, but that does not mean it will be 50-50 across the board.

Welcome to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which made it illegal to pay women less than men based on their gender. The gender "pay gap" has been thoroughly debunked by multiple studies and universities, including harvard.

Just because there isn't "equal representation" of women in high powered CEO jobs or political positions does not show any form of oppression. I never hear of people complaining of the lack of women in other jobs such as deep sea fishing, lumberjacks, and trash haulers. What about the lack of men in daycares, nursing jobs, or jobs such as social workers?

However, I doubt you would call men oppressed.

Once again, I am waiting for that example of women being oppressed in western society.

There are plenty of examples of men working in daycare, social work, and nursing. Nursing (and other similar positions that provide medical care but do not require an MD) in particular is one of the most lucrative and sought after careers at this moment.

I am not concerned with the lack of men in these "caregiver" type positions, because men are not experiencing bias that prevents them from entering into those fields.

Presumably women would not be barred from deep sea fishing, logging, or waste management, given the necessary interest and physical strength to do the work.

CEOs and elected offices are prestige positions that both men and women aspire to. They come with name recognition, high pay (not so much for the public sector, but elected office often leads to high level corporate positions), and prestige. I can accept that some women may be less inclined to politics and leadership roles in general, and I can accept that some women may be objectively less qualified than their male opponent(s), but I really have to think there is a systemic bias if there are 3 elected men for every elected woman at the state level, and 4 elected men for every elected woman at the federal level. I also tend to think there is systemic bias if there are 13 men for every woman in a CEO position.

I am not advocating for equality of outcome, but for equality of opportunity (which we have) and equality in education (which we don't). Yes, men and women go to the same schools, and receive the same basic education. But men are steered towards different career paths than women from a young age, artificially skewing the interest level and creating a pipeline problem where there are less qualified women gravitating towards these roles.

Can I point to a single egregious example that makes my point and wraps up this entire discussion in a nice neat bow? No. Because it is a widespread systemic issue.

As to the pay gap, you are correct, it is illegal to pay men and women different amounts for the same job based on their gender. It is not illegal to put a man in a "Customer Support Technician" position and pay 50,000, while putting a woman in a "Customer Support Representative" position and pay 40,000, while assigning similar duties to both positions. I mean, technically it is, but it is exceedingly difficult to prove in a court of law.

About the fetus, at what point then do we consider the child to be a person? Considering that different babies grow at different rates, thus the point in which a child can survive outside the womb differs with each case, we can't fully use that point in time to classify them as a person. Nor can we when they are born, as they are well beyond that point.

This is a great point, we can't place a specific date on it. Additionally, it is difficult to determine with precision when a fetus was actually conceived - particularly for women who have sex with any degree of frequency. It is for this reason that we should not restrict abortions based on the time since the woman conceived.

[Total Crica]

Another woman's egg is hers to develop or discard as she see's fit until it is viable. Until then, it's none of your buisness what happens to her eggs.

None of you can provide for them until they are viable and none of you can enslave her to provide for them until they are viable.

Women are free to discard their own eggs via a period or a legal abortion in the USA, or gestate them until birth.

Her body, her choice until viability. None of any of your buisness's until then.

[Antiganon]

Another woman's egg is hers to develop or discard as she see's fit until it is viable. Until then, it's none of your buisness what happens to her eggs.

None of you can provide for them until they are viable and none of you can enslave her to provide for them until they are viable.

Women are free to discard their own eggs via a period or a legal abortion in the USA, or gestate them until birth.

Her body, her choice until viability. None of any of your buisness's until then.

/THREAD.

/10char

[Swizzington]

What is hillarious was your comment to me and the complete lack of understanding between the difference of a fetus and sperm. And no, I am a guy.

To which I know you will accuse me of trying to insert my opinion into something where "it doesn't belong", completely forgetting the fact that it takes two people (1 man, 1 woman) to get pregnant with a child. As the child is 50% mother and 50% the father, the man also has a say in regards to the wellfare of his child.

Also, as I have mentioned earlier, I view abortion as murder, and just like I would speak out against a murderer, I speak out against abortion.

Fun fact, the march for life in DC is going on today, where thousands of people march in DC in hopes to end the legalization of abortion.

Nah, what's hilarious is you arguing so adamantly about this. Not gonna put a lot of effort into some big debate over something when the other side of the argument is just fucking ludicrous.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Can someone tell me how Abortion isn't murder, but if you kill a woman who is pregnant you can be charged for murder of 2?

If abortion is not murder, and you punch a lady that causes her to miscarriage, shouldn't the charge be "theft/stealing or damaging personal property", since by law it's not a life, it's an object the woman owns?

Shouldn't the law definition be more consistent? Or does this just show that technically the law is simply allowing the woman to have special privilege to terminate life?

Its not technically murder, its probably a bad thing to call it in the first place. The seriousness makes sense though: you are taking something away from her, causing her medical and emotional issues etc.

That this is call murder does not make abortion murder.

- - - Updated - - -

The most fundamental right of an individual is the right to life.

And your response clearly shows your lack of understanding in regards to the conversation. Which is fine, remain ignorant if that helps you sleep at night.

Every person has the right to life, and while I am all for small government, I am also for government protecting life, our most basic right.

In the words of Ronald Reagan, I can't help but realize that every person who supports abortion is already born.

Fetuses aren't people.

- - - Updated - - -

Fun fact, the march for life in DC is going on today, where thousands of people march in DC in hopes to end the legalization of abortion.

They are in favor of stealing rights, then. Also they will not win. Waste of time.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again, I am waiting for that example of women being oppressed in western society.

Women aren't oppressed, thanks to things like Roe V Wade.

[Garnier Fructis]

Or does this just show that technically the law is simply allowing the woman to have special privilege to terminate life?

Yes, that is exactly what is happening. Because most states want to protect a fetus and they have to do it in a manner that doesn't violate Roe v. Wade, which means you see all sorts of different exceptions and modifications in the laws.

[Raelbo]

The woman has a choice, the exact same choice as the man. You either accept the possible risks of engaging in the act of sex, or you refrain to sex. If you really wish not to have children, get the surgery to have your tubes tied or completely removed.

Having no choice but to have a baby if pregnancy occurs is positively medieval. Yes, yes, I agree that both men and women need to be aware of the risks of engaging in sex (even with protection and/or contraception), but forcing needless consequences on the woman is the problem with the anti-abortion camp.

Once a pregnancy has occured, it's no longer 2 lives we are talking about, but 3. Whether you agree that the child is alive or not does not take away from the fact that in 9 months that "bundle of cells" will have fully transformed into a human baby. That "bundle of cells" contains it's own unique DNA seperate from the mother, it's own unique blood type, heartbeat, bone structure, hormones, ect. Besides the fact that it get's it's nutrition from the mother, it is a completely separate being.

Of course the foetus is alive. Of course it has its own unique DNA, and of course, if nature is allowed to take its course then the foetus has a chance of becoming a human being. None of this demonstrates that a zygote is the same thing as baby, which would be the basis for entitling it to the same rights and protections as a baby.

Abortion is not a right, and while yes pregnancy effects a woman's body only, it takes two to get pregnant. Your choice is before you engage in the act of sex, plain and simple.

The argument that a highly developed foetus deserves similar protection to a baby has objective merit. The argument that a foetus of an early pregnancy deserves the same is purely emotional. Therefore, while one can justify that society restrict the choices of a woman who is, say, 30 weeks pregnant, there is no justification for doing the same to a woman who is only 10 weeks pregnant. The two foetuses involved are substantially different entities.

If I robbed somebody of their car, could I just stop in mid-getaway, place the car on the side of the road, and expect no consequences what so ever? No, my choice was before I decided to steal the car. Once I have stolen the car, I have accepted the risks and consequences that accompany my action.

Lol @ this ludicrous analogy. You're basically comparing the act of sex with a criminal offence, which tells me all I need to know about your attitudes towards sex. By all means apply this to your own life, but don't expect the rest of society to drink your Kool Aid.

And you wonder why society won't take religious nutters seriously

You clearly don't understand alot of the anti-abortion stance if you believe that a "significant chunck" are misogynistic ideals.

Oh I understand them just fine thank you very much. You clearly don't understand just how misogynistic you are, in the same way that many evil and terrible people through history have believed that their actions and attitudes were perfectly acceptable.

Abortion is murder, plain and simple.

No it is not, plain and simple. Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being. Abortion concerns the killing of a human foetus. The burden of proof is on anti-abortion activists to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that a foetus qualifies as a human being.

So many people today feel like they need to "speak up for the little guy" except in the case of abortion. Why? Because the little guy is LITERALLY a little human being, who has yet to be born, and has no voice of their own. Instead, we just give women the ability to decide whether the child is considered new life or not, despite all facts point to the child being alive.

This argument applies to a near full term foetus but becomes increasingly dubious the less progressed the pregnancy is.

I mentioned above an theoretical example, 2 in fact, one where a 9 week pregnant woman is killed, and another chooses abortion. One is classified as a double homicide, and we all feel disgust and hatred for the person that "murdered a pregnant woman.", and then one is simply classified as a procedure because like the flip of a switch, that child is no longer considered new life.

This supposed "contradiction" is easily justified by the simple application of logic.

A baby is the likely result of a pregnancy that a mother chooses not to abort. In other words, mathematically

Baby = foetus + Mother's choice to carry it to term.

In simple terms: While the value of a human being's life is determined by society. The value of a foetus's life is determined by its mother.

I guess if someone killed a woman on her to the abortion clinic then one would expect the legal basis for a double homicide to fall away.

And enough of this "women are oppressed" propaganda. At least in the West and first world countries, women constantly have it equal to, if not better than men. Only in the middle east and parts of africa are women still oppressed. That argument holds no water in the west however, so please drop it.

Enough of this denial propaganda. The first step in solving the issue is admitting that it's real. I guess it's far more convenient though for your ilk to deny reality because you'd obviously rather live in a world where women have less power than you.

- - - Updated - - -

To which I know you will accuse me of trying to insert my opinion into something where "it doesn't belong", completely forgetting the fact that it takes two people (1 man, 1 woman) to get pregnant with a child. As the child is 50% mother and 50% the father, the man also has a say in regards to the wellfare of his child.

Yes, a father has a say in regards to the wellfare of his child. Not foetus. If a man wishes for his foetus to become a child he needs to make sure he finds a mate who agrees to do so before having sex.

Also, as I have mentioned earlier, I view abortion as murder, and just like I would speak out against a murderer, I speak out against abortion.

That's fine, you're entitled to view abortion as murder. But that doesn't mean it is murder, nor are you entitled to treat the person any differently to someone who has been tried for murder and found to be not guilty.

I mean, maybe I view killing animals as murder, which would make anyone who eats meat an accomplice to the crime. I should then probably expect society to treat me as if I am not entirely sane. Same applies to you.

Fun fact, the march for life in DC is going on today, where thousands of people march in DC in hopes to end the legalization of abortion.

God help us all if you people actually succeed.....

- - - Updated - - -

This is a great point, we can't place a specific date on it. Additionally, it is difficult to determine with precision when a fetus was actually conceived - particularly for women who have sex with any degree of frequency. It is for this reason that we should not restrict abortions based on the time since the woman conceived.

True, there is no way to determine definitively when a foetus should be classified as sufficiently human to start qualifying for human rights.
Probably the most rational approach, considering that if you get it wrong, you're killing a human being, is to consider an age at which you can satisfy a "beyond reasonable doubt" condition.

Obviously a 40 week "foetus" should qualify since it will be more developed than many babies who are already born. Equally obviously, the day after conception it should not qualify. Between the boundary conditions we'll have a region where the overwhelming consensus is that the foetus is sufficiently developed, and another region where the overwhelming consensus is that the foetus is not sufficiently developed. In between you have the grey area where disagreement happens, which begins where we start to have reasonable doubts about the certainty of our consensus. That becomes the cut-off point.

In practical terms. We may not all agree that at 20 weeks a foetus is sufficiently developed to deserve human rights, but there is just enough doubt starting to happen that wasn't really there at 19 weeks, to make us act to protect the potential human life. It's the point at which we transition from "no chance" to "maybe under exceptional circumstances"

[Grokresh]

Glad this isn't an arguement in the England, it's legal and no party has any policy to even try to change that. Sucks for American though, a living breathing existing women will always mean more to me then a bundle of cells, bodily autonomy of the living comes before the potentinal living, it's not like all life is sacred anyway we're overpopulated as fuck. if someone had chosen to abort me because they couldn't of given me a good life or handled me well that's their body and I just wouldn't of existed, ah well. (PS the least suffering would be the option that gets rid of the creature that has barely existed and cannot comprehend reality, not the one who will have to live with the consquences of delivering a baby, phsyicality, mentally, resource wise etc.)

[Astalnar]

Oh that would be fun. Just imagine a serial killer defending himself by saying "what I do in the privacy of my home is my own business". Who cares if he killed more than a dozen people, chopped them to pieces and fed them to his dog, right? It was all done in his privacy, and he had the right to his privacy.

The problem from pro-life camp is that the proponents of abortion right now shout "One can murder an innocent child whenever I so choose." And you'd like to transform that into "It's none of your concern who one murders." You can probably see the problem, and that is why the serious debates around abortion adress the topic when does the life begin in order to establish when is it ok to abort and when is it not. But the thing with that argument was that it allowed a wigglespace for abortion until the pro-life declared that life starts at conception. At which point any abortion becomes murder.