Roe v Wade is about PRIVACY!

[Garnier Fructis]

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.

The problem is that you ludicrously misrepresented the pro-choice position. And you seem to misunderstand what murder is, to boot.

[Byleth]

Funny how people in here have so much hate or indifference for everything living on this planet, EXCEPT for a parasitic lump growing inside a woman's womb.
Ah, they just hate women having a sex with few or no consequences. Better keep em clean and dependent on a man's support!

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Why do you all care so very much about what other people do with their PRIVATE lives? How does it personally affect you?

[Astalnar]

The problem is that you ludicrously misrepresented the pro-choice position. And you seem to misunderstand what murder is, to boot.

I don't care about either in this case. I just demonstrated what "pro-choice" position boils down from the pro-life POV. If you're incapable of accepting the fact that not all people agree with your preconcieved notions, that's on you, not me. As far as pro-life is concerned, pro-choice is tantamount to pro-murder. Hence why they define themselves as pro-life, and spend all their days talking about sanctity of life.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I don't care about either in this case. I just demonstrated what "pro-choice" position boils down from the pro-life POV. If you're incapable of accepting the fact that not all people agree with your preconcieved notions, that's on you, not me. As far as pro-life is concerned, pro-choice is tantamount to pro-murder. Hence why they define themselves as pro-life, and spend all their days talking about sanctity of life.

Then pro-life people are misguided and don't understand what murder is at all. They are literally making shit up.

[Astalnar]

Then pro-life people are misguided and don't understand what murder is at all. They are literally making shit up.

Now prove them wrong. I'll wait over here with some popcorn. I'm sure it'll go over splendidly when you try to tell them how they are the ones who are misguided, and not you. I'm sure they'll be very understanding of your own opinions and notions.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Now prove them wrong. I'll wait over here with some popcorn. I'm sure it'll go over splendidly when you try to tell them how they are the ones who are misguided, and not you. I'm sure they'll be very understanding of your own opinions and notions.

Not opinions, fact. If my "opinion" is that speeding is murder because one could potentially drive too fast and kill someone, that doesn't mean a single thing.

It is a fact that in the United States, abortion is completely legal and not murder. Since murder is something charged on a state/federal level, and not a personal one, it doesn't even matter a teeny tiny bit what a pro-life person things. Their opinion literally does not matter. Abortion is covered under the constitution as a right of privacy. That counters any shitty logic or feelings you, or anyone else may have.

[Astalnar]

Not opinions, fact. If my "opinion" is that speeding is murder because one could potentially drive too fast and kill someone, that doesn't mean a single thing.

It is a fact that in the United States, abortion is completely legal and not murder. Since murder is something charged on a state/federal level, and not a personal one, it doesn't even matter a teeny tiny bit what a pro-life person things. Their opinion literally does not matter. Abortion is covered under the constitution as a right of privacy. That counters any shitty logic or feelings you, or anyone else may have.

You are completely right. And all that still amounts to nothing because as I recall, laws are subject to change, so that's a rather shaky defence right there. We're not talking about policy, but public discourse. And in public discourse pro-life holds the rhetorical highground if you like it or not.

You can probably recall, that whenever pro-life side puts out a challenge if you'd rather let the woman choose and kill the baby or not let her decide and have the baby live, the pro-choice side never ever states "yes, kill the child if the woman so chooses". They always deny there is any killing involved. Pro-life on the other hand can freely admit that the woman has a choice. But as they see it, keeping the baby is the right choice, and abortion is wrong choice.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

You are completely right. And all that still amounts to nothing because as I recall, laws are subject to change, so that's a rather shaky defence right there. We're not talking about policy, but public discourse. And in public discourse pro-life holds the rhetorical highground if you like it or not.

You can probably recall, that whenever pro-life side puts out a challenge if you'd rather let the woman choose and kill the baby or not let her decide and have the baby live, the pro-choice side never ever states "yes, kill the child if the woman so chooses". They always deny there is any killing involved. Pro-life on the other hand can freely admit that the woman has a choice. But as they see it, keeping the baby is the right choice, and abortion is wrong choice.

Well, its an amendment to the Constitution, so its not really that shaky. Either way its still factually not murder. So believing it to be murder is tantamount to believing that putting crystals in your room will cure cancer.

[Stormdash]

Well, its an amendment to the Constitution, so its not really that shaky. Either way its still factually not murder. So believing it to be murder is tantamount to believing that putting crystals in your room will cure cancer.

No it isn't. Even it's own purveyors referred to it as being in a "penumbra", literally a shadow, it's a doctrine that is 100% implied and 0% explicit anywhere in the Constitution. And again, that was conceded by the deciding majority. I don't know what fool repeated to you that it was "an amendment to the Constitution" that people could legally receive abortion on demand*, but fool they were.

[Garnier Fructis]

You are completely right. And all that still amounts to nothing because as I recall, laws are subject to change, so that's a rather shaky defence right there. We're not talking about policy, but public discourse. And in public discourse pro-life holds the rhetorical highground if you like it or not.

Why is it a shaky defense? Yes, laws are subject to change. But those laws haven't been changed yet; as it stands, pro-life calling it murder is factually wrong. Employing that language before they've actually managed to change the law means that they are arguing from a position of what they want to be true, not what is true.

There's also a deeper problem which a majority of pro-life proponents have to deal with, which is that abortion as murder and allowing abortion for rape, incest, etc seem to be morally contradictory (~50% identify as pro-life, only <20% think it should be unconditionally illegal). Is it fine to murder that child just because the mother was raped, or is it suddenly not murder?

But even if the pro-life crowd is afflicted with multiple logical and moral conundrums, their words can still be effective in persuading people. But in basically any poll of abortion that tracks over time, positions have divided roughly the same way for decades. How does one side occupy the rhetorical high ground if they can't actually effect a shift in public opinion? If anything, the sides are at a stalemate.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

No it isn't. Even it's own purveyors referred to it as being in a "penumbra", literally a shadow, it's a doctrine that is 100% implied and 0% explicit anywhere in the Constitution. And again, that was conceded by the deciding majority. I don't know what fool repeated to you that it was "an amendment to the Constitution" that people could legally receive abortion on demand*, but fool they were.

Yes, abortion is covered under the right to privacy clause in the 14th amendment. Sorry, you are wrong.

Abortion -1 Stormdash -0

[Mormolyce]

No it isn't. Even it's own purveyors referred to it as being in a "penumbra", literally a shadow, it's a doctrine that is 100% implied and 0% explicit anywhere in the Constitution. And again, that was conceded by the deciding majority. I don't know what fool repeated to you that it was "an amendment to the Constitution" that people could legally receive abortion on demand*, but fool they were.

That's a misinterpretation of the way the Constitution works. Every piece of jurisprudence derived from it relies on interpretation. That's the responsibility of the judiciary, and that's the fundamental design of constitutional law in the United States.

It doesn't matter what is explicitly written in the Constitution, it matters how the courts have interpreted it. That's true of EVERYTHING in it. Otherwise eg, you wouldn't have any Second Amendment protections unless you were part of a "well regulated militia".

If you don't like the right to privacy the only way to get rid of it would be to pass a Constitutional Amendment specifically eliminating it. But that would be exceptionally difficult because (ignoring the fact you'd never get enough people to vote for it) it's such a crucial legal foundation underpinning so many legal decisions. Also Constitutional Amendments are almost universally used to reduce the government's ability to intrude on the rights of its citizens, not expand them.

[Flutterguy]

The issue is, the right to privacy argument makes you seem shady. Seeming shady works wonders to vilify yourself in the eyes of those you need to convince to not vote away your rights.

The "bodily autonomy" argument is generally the best one that has worked over the years. No one, regardless of age, has a right to use your body against your will. We just give a cut off point to when you generally "agree" to let that "person" use your body at 20ish weeks and allow life of the mother and if the fetus won't live birth level of defects to be a deciding factor afterwards.

The only problem with bodily autonomy is that the state does regulate what you can do with your body already. Prostitution, drug use, and suicide being a few "body autonomy" issues that are regulated/outlawed.

[Mormolyce]

The only problem with bodily autonomy is that the state does regulate what you can do with your body already. Prostitution, drug use, and suicide being a few "body autonomy" issues that are regulated/outlawed.

I am opposed to laws against all of these.

Suicide has been decriminalised (or effectively decriminalised, ie any legacy laws remaining on the books in certain states are generally not enforced) in the US though.

[therealbowser]

I support abortion not because I support the act of preventing unborn children from having a chance of life, I support it because it's a necessary evil. Furthermore, there are a lot of extremely valid cases where it's 100% justified, and if it were 'banned' it would still be used, illegally, and dangerously.

Threads like this are kind of pointless. Wording something a different way doesn't change the debate. It's still about whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal. It's too complex an issue, and in a perfect world, would be based on a case by case basis on a magically unbiased way that somehow didn't have the potential to ruin the lives of anyone involved. Unfortunately, this just isn't the case.

I'm against it just being an argument about 'it's her body' when there is so much more to it than that; abortion is largely unnecessary when you can prevent it almost completely by very easy prevention. You can argue that the father deserves rights in this situation as well, but for me, it's the rights of the unborn child that concern me the most. The primary reason I accept it though, is because it would happen anyways, and overpopulation (which abortion can cut back on) is the easiest way to prevent this. Again, a necessary evil.

On topic, this is just too ridiculous for me to really comment on. Call it whatever you want, abortion is abortion. Argue for it or against it, but trying to make it a privacy issue is ridiculous.

[Deleted]

Saying abortion is privacy is about as effective as calling illegals "undocumented". Just a way to make a horrible act sound pillowy and acceptable.

It is a horrible act. There's nothing beautiful or pleasant about it. Nobody just loves abortions. But ultimately a woman's right to decide what goes on in her uterus trumps a fetus' right to life.

- - - Updated - - -

The only problem with bodily autonomy is that the state does regulate what you can do with your body already. Prostitution, drug use, and suicide being a few "body autonomy" issues that are regulated/outlawed.

Yeah, but are any of these really illegal because of the morality of bodily autonomy?

If a woman can sleep with a 10 guys every day without any legal repercussions but it's suddenly illegal when money comes into the mix, surely the "bodily autonomy" isn't really part of the equation as much as the financial matter.

Drug users don't get picked up and sent to rehab on sight, but they will get arrested once they have the drugs, which is an illegal substance.
Again, is it really out of concern for the drug user or is it an attempt to combat the forces that surround the world of drugs?

And suicide isn't illegal in the US, you won't be punished if you do try and fail. Assisted suicide, however, is mostly illegal, likely because it'd be an easy way to murder someone without consequences.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

The only problem with bodily autonomy is that the state does regulate what you can do with your body already. Prostitution, drug use, and suicide being a few "body autonomy" issues that are regulated/outlawed.

Those are different. Abortion is covered under bodily autonomy because pregnancy is rough on the body and has adverse effects. You can't say the same thing about the others...

[Ofmanv]

Ugh... why do these annoying people keep pestering me and disturbing my privacy? I'm just trying to kill people without being bothered.

[Garnier Fructis]

Ugh... why do these annoying people keep pestering me and disturbing my privacy? I'm just trying to kill people without being bothered.

Wow, it's almost like other people don't consider a fetus to be a person.

[Ofmanv]

Wow, it's almost like other people don't consider a fetus to be a person.

I don't consider you to be a person.