SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Gestopft]

However, people are taking extreme sides, they are each others throats.

Being at each others' throats is not necessarily an indication of extremity. Just passion.

Conservatives are taking extreme sides. See: the bills many red states have passed in preparation for this moment. On the flip side, "hey, we should have bodily autonomy" is NOT an extreme position. In general, Liberals only appear extreme if you believe the motives ascribed to them by conservatives.

[D3thray]

Not gonna lie, it took me years to fully realize how meaningless the rape argument was. Like you and Endus said: it's a pretense to appease enlightened centrist like fellow @Xilurm up there.

Self-defense is the appropriate argument here in my opinion and would largely be in line with the anti-abortion viewpoint. That said, the mere fact that whether or not a fetus is ‘alive’ or ‘human’ is controversial should really make more people take pause. I’d have an older sibling were it not for Roe (and my mother’s parents), a decision my mother has regretted and felt shame and guilt for her entire life. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, pro-choice is not a salient argument when it comes to whether or not to end the life of a fetus and has only served to push opponents to greater extremes because of the perceived flippancy of abortion advocates. We fought a war over whether or not other human beings were considered human and history seems to like cycles.

[Mihalik]

Until we understand that the rights people have in USA are granted by the people to the people and not a document, we are going to be dealing with this kind of idiocy.

There was this Republican official during the January 6 hearings who was being pressured by Trump to overturn the results in his state. The name doesn't pop in mind right now.

They guy rejected Trump, but I found the reasoning why a bit jarring. The guy basically said he was being asked to do something unconstitutional, but he is a religious man who believes that the Constitution is a devinely inspired document, so overturning the elections went against his faith. And the guy was praised as some hero and nobody on TV mentioned just how fucking crazy that line of reasoning was.

I mean I'm glad he didn't turn over the elections, but how the fuck are you going to have a serious conversation about civil rights or human rights with someone who legitimately thinks that a deeply flawed document written 250 years ago by a bunch of slavers is devinely inspired document, akin to scripture?

[Xilurm]

Being at each others' throats is not necessarily an indication of extremity. Just passion.

Conservatives are taking extreme sides. See: the bills many red states have passed in preparation for this moment. On the flip side, "hey, we should have bodily autonomy" is NOT an extreme position. In general, Liberals only appear extreme if you believe the motives ascribed to them by conservatives.

Oh no I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the "you should fucking die/you should've gotten aborted" stuff.

[Gestopft]

That said, the mere fact that whether or not a fetus is ‘alive’ or ‘human’ is controversial should really make more people take pause.

This is why I tend to abhor the whole discussion of abortion. Because what it comes down to is whether or not one accepts the argument from potential.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh no I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the "you should fucking die/you should've gotten aborted" stuff.

When you said "extreme sides" I figured you mean...you know...political positions. Not just being assholes to each other.

[Mekh]

Self-defense is the appropriate argument here in my opinion and would largely be in line with the anti-abortion viewpoint. That said, the mere fact that whether or not a fetus is ‘alive’ or ‘human’ is controversial should really make more people take pause. I’d have an older sibling were it not for Roe (and my mother’s parents), a decision my mother has regretted and felt shame and guilt for her entire life. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, pro-choice is not a salient argument when it comes to whether or not to end the life of a fetus and has only served to push opponents to greater extremes because of the perceived flippancy of abortion advocates. We fought a war over whether or not other human beings were considered human and history seems to like cycles.

Grown human's right not to be an incubator trumps potential human's right to suck blood. Grown human's right not to take physical or psychological damage, trumps potential human's right to cause said damage. Also, there is no right to a sibling, so kindly troll off.

[Mihalik]

Self-defense is the appropriate argument here in my opinion and would largely be in line with the anti-abortion viewpoint. That said, the mere fact that whether or not a fetus is ‘alive’ or ‘human’ is controversial should really make more people take pause. I’d have an older sibling were it not for Roe (and my mother’s parents), a decision my mother has regretted and felt shame and guilt for her entire life. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, pro-choice is not a salient argument when it comes to whether or not to end the life of a fetus and has only served to push opponents to greater extremes because of the perceived flippancy of abortion advocates. We fought a war over whether or not other human beings were considered human and history seems to like cycles.

1. Anecdote and what if.
2. Fetuses are not human beings.
3. Even if they were human beings one's right to life does not override another's right to bodily autonomy.

You brought up self defense. Point 3 is literally what allows you to exercise self defense. It's also why you cannot be forced to donate blood or organs, or even take a vaccine. It's why for example a father could never be legally obligated to donate blood to his own infant child for example.

[Shadowferal]

Woman who had miscarriage in Malta taken to Spain to abort

Andrea Prudente, 38, who suffered an incomplete miscarriage while vacationing in Malta lies in her bed at the Mater Dei Hospital in Msida, Malta, comforted by her partner Jay Weeldreyer, left, Thursday, June 23, 2022. Prudente will be airlifted to a Spanish island on Thursday for a procedure to prevent infection because Maltese law prohibits abortion under any circumstances, the woman's partner said.

[Endus]

The fetus is always in question though. I just believe that the woman's life, health, both physical and mental are way more important than the fetus itself.

Why would it ever be in question? Unless we're talking so late-term that the simplest means to abort is to induce birth, why would the fetus ever factor in?

The only arguments for such are fundamentally religious, and freedom of religion laws require that those arguments be rejected.

Because she's doing it out of inconvenience, just doesn't feel like it.

That isn't remotely a meaningful difference, at all. This is just an expression of hatred for women having agency to choose for themselves. That's literally all this argument says. Nothing more.

I'm not bringing religion in this btw.

If you're talking about fetal "rights" or the like, you absolutely are. It's an incontrovertibly religious take that has no basis in science whatsoever.

I think it's morally wrong not because of any religious ideals or anything of the sort, but just because I believe it is. But at the same time I don't think it should be banned.

Here's the thing;

I don't care what you base your completely unjustifiable faith in. You could be a member of any of the Earth's hundreds of religious groups, you could have faith in the Bananalord, or you could think all life is secretly run by psychic ghost-monkeys from the Planet Zeb.

I don't care.

What you believe is absolutely fucking meaningless and irrelevant to me, or anyone else. I can respect your capacity to believe whatever you choose and have it shape your decisions as much as you want it to. I will steadfastly oppose any such "belief" being enforced on anyone else. Anything based on faith or belief is personal, and that means it has no meaning to anyone but you.

In a world with so much child abuse, (or hell, abuse in general) I fully disagree.

Go on, cite me a single example of literally anyone proud of getting an abortion, for the sake of getting an abortion itself, not as pride in her capacity to make choices about her own body or as a "fuck you" to those who oppose such rights.

Again, no religious ideals for this here. I just think its messed up if you do it willy nilly, without conscience.

Which, again, is fundamentally irrational and at least pseudo-religious. And the distinction's rather meaningless.

My first post on this thread was about twitter and the extreme positions people are taking, from both sides. Thats my whole point in this discussion. I don't oppose abortion being legal, but I do think it's a necessary evil.

Yes, and that first post pushed "both sides" malarkey.

Pro-choice is just the position that women have basic human rights, like men do, including bodily autonomy. That's it. That's the whole thing. It isn't "extreme" in any respect whatsoever.

Wanting to restrict abortion rights on pseudo- if not outright-religious grounds alone? That is extremism. The entire pro-life movement is extremist.

[Xilurm]

When you said "extreme sides" I figured you mean...you know...political positions. Not just being assholes to each other.

Politics would be so much better if people weren't being assholes to each other. Hence America being in the state that it is.

Like if they really plan on banning gay marriage, that's just being a cunt. They literally got nothing to lose by banning it.

[Raetary]

I just think its messed up if you do it willy nilly, without conscience.

Except that this doesn't actually happen.

Abortions are an incredibly taxing procedure, mentally, emotionally and physically.
No one gets an abortion willy nilly.

[Mihalik]

Woman who had miscarriage in Malta taken to Spain to abort

Andrea Prudente, 38, who suffered an incomplete miscarriage while vacationing in Malta lies in her bed at the Mater Dei Hospital in Msida, Malta, comforted by her partner Jay Weeldreyer, left, Thursday, June 23, 2022. Prudente will be airlifted to a Spanish island on Thursday for a procedure to prevent infection because Maltese law prohibits abortion under any circumstances, the woman's partner said.

Pucker your anus for the insurance rate hikes associated with pregnancy now. Can you imagine what it would take to convince your insurance company to airlift you 3 states across to have the rotting fetus removed from your body?

That's assuming your state would even allow you to leave the state.

[D3thray]

Grown human's right not to be an incubator trumps potential human's right to suck blood. Grown human's right not to take physical or psychological damage, trumps potential human's right to cause said damage. Also, there is no right to a sibling, so kindly troll off.

There’s no trolling at all intended in my response, I’m being quite sincere. There’s no potential human in this equation, the fetus either is human or isn’t. That’s all there is to it. If you think it’s not human ok, then what you say follows. But if it is? 70,000,000 is a lot of people killed since Roe for various and sometimes admittedly good reasons. But for the rest? That’s genocide territory.

I’m not trolling at all, just pointing out how extreme a bodily autonomy argument sounds to someone who wholly believes in the humanity of a fetus. No religion required here, you’ll notice how many abortion opponents were women in front of that courthouse.

[Darththeo]

There’s no trolling at all intended in my response, I’m being quite sincere. There’s no potential human in this equation, the fetus either is human or isn’t. That’s all there is to it. If you think it’s not human ok, then what you say follows. But if it is? 70,000,000 is a lot of people killed since Roe for various and sometimes admittedly good reasons. But for the rest? That’s genocide territory.

I’m not trolling at all, just pointing out how extreme a bodily autonomy argument sounds to someone who wholly believes in the humanity of a fetus. No religion required here, you’ll notice how many abortion opponents were women in front of that courthouse.

It isn't genocide at all. The number of people killed does not equate to genocide. If that was the case, every war would be genocide.

[Endus]

That said, the mere fact that whether or not a fetus is ‘alive’ or ‘human’ is controversial should really make more people take pause.

It really shouldn't.

Here's why it's a nonsense argument, from the secular perspective (since any religious arguments can be summarily dismissed and thrown out);

1> The fact that something is "alive" does not confer it rights. The dandelions in my lawn are "alive" but I can still dig them out or use weedkiller on 'em.

2> Life does not "begin". The "beginning" of life was the trigger point of abiogenesis, some billions of years ago. Since then, it's been a continuation of life. In the human context, our gametes (ova and sperm) are created by living individuals, and are, themselves, alive, and combine to form a new, still-living, fertilized zygote. There was never a point where anything in that cycle was "not alive", and no "life" was created.

3> If you mean "a life", rather than the processes of life itself, then you're making a personhood argument, or a religious argument. If the latter, toss it away. If the former, we'll come back to that. If you mean anything but those two, you're making something up and it's weird and not relevant.

4> Whether something is "human" has the same issue. If you mean "human", you are referring to anything produced by a human body. Human excrement. Human sweat. Human hair. Human tissue. Of course a zygote or fetus is "human". So's the snot I dug out of my nose. Does my snot have rights?

5> If you mean "a human", we're talking about personhood or a religious argument, again. See #3.

6> Now, personhood. This is a legal term. It's fundamentally arbitrary, though can be justified on objectively-determinable grounds. The current definition in the USA is "at birth, you become a person". Anyone pushing anything else is just wrong. It's also a completely irrelevant question, as we're about to get into; anyone talking about "personhood" (or "a life", or "a" human", see #s 3 and 5) is willfully trying to distract you with irrelevancies, attacking a straw man because they know they can't make their case on the relevant facts and principles.

7> Why is personhood irrelevant? Because bodily autonomy trumps right to life. There is no circumstance where one person can be forced to donate tissue or be forcibly hooked up to another human being as a mobile dialysis unit (say). Even the suggestion is gross as hell. But that's because it violates one person's right to bodily autonomy, to protect another person's right to life. There is no circumstance where right to life is deemed to overrule bodily autonomy; if you're the only possible match to someone who needs a new liver, even though livers regrow and you'll face very little long-term consequence or risk (less than carrying a pregnancy to term), you cannot be forced to donate part of your liver. So, even if we consider the fetus "a human", or "a life", it isn't relevant; the bodily autonomy of the one pregnant overrules any right to life a fetus even hypothetically might have. Which it doesn't, to be clear. But even if it did, still not an argument against freedom of choice.

It's all a distraction. Bullshit, from day 1, pushing a pseudo-religious misogyny. A lie, perpetrated to harm and marginalize women.

[Mihalik]

manure with lots of 00000000

One more time for emphasis. Even if hypothetically accepting that fetuses or that clump of cells that have more in common with fish roe than with a human being have a right to life.

One's right to life, does not override another's right to bodily autonomy.

This is a core principle for a million different other protections, like the right to self defense, the right to reject unwanted medical procedures, the right not to be experimented on, the right for your DNA not to be used for something potentially life saving without your consent and the list goes on and on and on.

It doesn't matter how many lives that would save or deaths it would prevent.

You are making an exception in this case and this case alone only and only for pregnant women. Not fathers, not even parents of already born children. Just pregnant women.

[Endus]

There’s no trolling at all intended in my response, I’m being quite sincere. There’s no potential human in this equation, the fetus either is human or isn’t.

My wisdom teeth were human. And alive. Did I take 4 lives when I had them removed?

Same argument that you're making.

I’m not trolling at all, just pointing out how extreme a bodily autonomy argument sounds to someone who wholly believes in the humanity of a fetus. No religion required here, you’ll notice how many abortion opponents were women in front of that courthouse.

Your "wholly believing in the humanity of a fetus" is, at best pseudo-religious, if not outright religious. It has no basis in fact nor reason nor science.

And, as demonstrated above, doesn't even qualify as an argument against abortion rights, even if it were true, which makes one wonder why you'd even think it would.

[Mekh]

There’s no trolling at all intended in my response, I’m being quite sincere. There’s no potential human in this equation, the fetus either is human or isn’t. That’s all there is to it. If you think it’s not human ok, then what you say follows.

Of course it's potential. Until they can live outside the womb, they aren't done. Spontaneous abortions happen all the time, ~10% in week 6, another ~5% in week 7, ~2% in week 8. Just for that short period alone, a fetus has about the same odds as an actual human surviving one round of Russian roulette.

[D3thray]

One more time for emphasis. Even if hypothetically accepting that fetuses or that clump of cells that have more in common with fish roe than with a human being have a right to life.

One's right to life, does not override another's right to bodily autonomy.

This is a core principle for a million different other protections, like the right to self defense, the right to reject unwanted medical procedures, the right not to be experimented on, the right for your DNA not to be used for something potentially life saving without your consent and the list goes on and on and on.

It doesn't matter how many lives that would save or deaths it would prevent.

You are making an exception in this case and this case alone only and only for pregnant women. Not fathers, not even parents of already born children. Just pregnant women.

I’ll give the rudeness a pass and just assume you didn’t read the words ‘self-defense’ in my original response to @Mekh a few posts up.

- - - Updated - - -

My wisdom teeth were human. And alive. Did I take 4 lives when I had them removed?

Same argument that you're making.



Your "wholly believing in the humanity of a fetus" is, at best pseudo-religious, if not outright religious. It has no basis in fact nor reason nor science.

And, as demonstrated above, doesn't even qualify as an argument against abortion rights, even if it were true, which makes one wonder why you'd even think it would.

Sounds an awful lot like something a phrenologist might have said circa 1860. Just saying.

[Endus]

Sounds an awful lot like something a phrenologist might have said circa 1860. Just saying.

Dude, you're the one making wildly imaginary claims based on nothing but your own empty belief, by your own admission, and demanding all of society be held to the standards of your make-believe.