SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Santti]

Pi is equal to three (and that last one's a real example, not a hypothetical)

Okay, I need to know more about this.

[Adamas102]

True. I think the future debate on this will be if human life is seen as a inconvenience or not. While its easy to point out the flaws of a blanket ban on abortion the prevailing sentiment on the topic was it was becoming to accessible and seen as simply another form of contraception.

Which of course proves that their argument stems from people being absolute morons who are out of touch with reality. There's no debate there, it's pure ignorance which can't really be reasoned with.

[Endus]

True. I think the future debate on this will be if human life is seen as a inconvenience or not.

Nope. That's a willfully dishonest framing. The "debate" has absolutely nothing to do with human life, in the first place. The "debate" is about the question "are women fully people and do they have the same right to self-ownership as men do?"

The entire focus on whether the fetus can be considered a "human life" is pseudo-religious (if not directly religious) strawmanning by misogynists, who don't want to admit their true argument.

Imagine there's a patient dying of a rare blood disease. You're identified as the only feasible donor who can donate to keep that person alive. Their life is at stake and they will, categorically, die if you don't donate. Except that patient is the guy who raped your sister. So clearly, you don't want to donate, I presume.

Now, can you be forced to donate, by the State? Will they legally punish you for refusing to let them harvest your blood, possibly even to the point of arresting you, strapping you down, and extracting the blood by force against your will?

If you find that horrible, then you understand why opposing abortion rights is abominable, because it's the same exact question. Even if we allow that a fetus is a person and a "human life" (I'm not, I'm making the point for the case of this example), then it's a question of two human rights; the "right to life" and the "right to self-ownership/bodily autonomy", the idea that you are the sole owner of yourself and your body cannot be violated or used against your will. In no other instance do we accept the idea of "right to life" of one superceding the "right to self-ownership" of another; your organs and tissue cannot be harvested against your will, even after death. If you're arguing women don't have that right when it comes to abortion, because of the right to life you want to claim a fetus has, then you're creating a special exception and your argument that it's based on "right to life" is false, because you don't support any other application of those same arguments.

So then we have to figure out what principles your argument is based on, because it was never about "right to life" in the first place. Not by anyone. Not legitimately. It's a lie they use so they don't have to admit their misogyny, possibly even to themselves.

While its easy to point out the flaws of a blanket ban on abortion the prevailing sentiment on the topic was it was becoming to accessible and seen as simply another form of contraception.

It is a form of birth control. By definition.

And no, that is in no way a "prevailing sentiment", even in the USA, let alone anywhere else in the developed world.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-most-cases-2/

In the decades to follow I am sure we will hammer out a new line in the sand on the issue... likely to will first be reserved for medical complications.

This is you trying to figure out how much you think women can be subjugated and harmed without society rejecting your intent to do so. To find that "line" where you get to engage in some abusive special pleading to hurt women.

Okay, I need to know more about this.

Apparently, I misremembered slightly. They tried to define it as 3.2, not 3.0; https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasm...h=5b74f580260a

[Tentim]

Which of course proves that their argument stems from people being absolute morons who are out of touch with reality. There's no debate there, it's pure ignorance which can't really be reasoned with.

You see no irony at all in the fact you can't begin to understand their motivations beyond the ones you ascribed to them while claiming ignorance?

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. That's a willfully dishonest framing. The "debate" has absolutely nothing to do with human life, in the first place. The "debate" is about the question "are women fully people and do they have the same right to self-ownership as men do?"

The entire focus on whether the fetus can be considered a "human life" is pseudo-religious (if not directly religious) strawmanning by misogynists, who don't want to admit their true argument.

Imagine there's a patient dying of a rare blood disease. You're identified as the only feasible donor who can donate to keep that person alive. Their life is at stake and they will, categorically, die if you don't donate. Except that patient is the guy who raped your sister. So clearly, you don't want to donate, I presume.

Now, can you be forced to donate, by the State? Will they legally punish you for refusing to let them harvest your blood, possibly even to the point of arresting you, strapping you down, and extracting the blood by force against your will?

If you find that horrible, then you understand why opposing abortion rights is abominable, because it's the same exact question. Even if we allow that a fetus is a person and a "human life" (I'm not, I'm making the point for the case of this example), then it's a question of two human rights; the "right to life" and the "right to self-ownership/bodily autonomy", the idea that you are the sole owner of yourself and your body cannot be violated or used against your will. In no other instance do we accept the idea of "right to life" of one superceding the "right to self-ownership" of another; your organs and tissue cannot be harvested against your will, even after death. If you're arguing women don't have that right when it comes to abortion, because of the right to life you want to claim a fetus has, then you're creating a special exception and your argument that it's based on "right to life" is false, because you don't support any other application of those same arguments.

So then we have to figure out what principles your argument is based on, because it was never about "right to life" in the first place. Not by anyone. Not legitimately. It's a lie they use so they don't have to admit their misogyny, possibly even to themselves.



It is a form of birth control. By definition.

And no, that is in no way a "prevailing sentiment", even in the USA, let alone anywhere else in the developed world.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-most-cases-2/



This is you trying to figure out how much you think women can be subjugated and harmed without society rejecting your intent to do so. To find that "line" where you get to engage in some abusive special pleading to hurt women.



Apparently, I misremembered slightly. They tried to define it as 3.2, not 3.0; https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasm...h=5b74f580260a

I think the debate is very much centered around the right to life vs autonomy. I doubt the misogyny angle is the prevailing sentiment ( you can maybe argue subconsciously but personally I find that a cope out).

I also doubt personally autonomy will be upheld as strongly as it is now in the future. Hopefully I've died peacefully in my sleep before then.

[Endus]

You see no irony at all in the fact you can't begin to understand their motivations beyond the ones you ascribed to them while claiming ignorance?

Why are you presuming we don't understand their motivations, in the first place? I've yet to hear you explain how we're getting anything wrong in that respect.

I think the debate is very much centered around the right to life vs autonomy.

Which demonstrates exactly how intellectually dishonest the "debate" is, because it's a settled question in every instance but abortion, and no legitimate argument is ever presented as to why abortion should be a special case.

Once you exclude the straw man that "right to life" is, there's no real debate. Because the "debate" itself is dishonest, the same way the "debate" about creationism vs evolution is, or flat vs spherical Earth. One side is not engaging honestly and in good faith.

I doubt the misogyny angle is the prevailing sentiment ( you can maybe argue subconsciously but personally I find that a cope out).

There's nothing else. Pro-life positions are misogynist. They require that you deny a women ownership over her own self in the name of her being treated as a brood mare.

Now, a lot of pro-lifers might not like that being pointed out, the same way people who think you have to hit your kids to teach them right from wrong don't like it being pointed out that they're abusive shitheads. But they are. And whining about people pointing that out won't ever change it.

[Muzjhath]

You see no irony at all in the fact you can't begin to understand their motivations beyond the ones you ascribed to them while claiming ignorance?

- - - Updated - - -



I think the debate is very much centered around the right to life vs autonomy. I doubt the misogyny angle is the prevailing sentiment ( you can maybe argue subconsciously but personally I find that a cope out).

I also doubt personally autonomy will be upheld as strongly as it is now in the future. Hopefully I've died peacefully in my sleep before then.

While not a research article, it points to several: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/23/h...tes/index.html

he association, an AMA spokesman said, “seeks to limit government interference in the practice of medicine and oppose government regulation of medicine that is unsupported by scientific evidence.”

Back when it was still a fledgling organization, however, it began a crusade in 1857 to make abortion illegal, Reagan wrote. The impetus was manifold. Some of it came “out of regular physicians’ desire to win professional power, control medical practice, and restrict their competitors,” namely midwives and homeopaths.

But this was also a time, Reagan said, in which women were lobbying for entrance into Harvard Medical School, in part so they could pursue work in obstetrics and gynecology.

The force behind this 19th-century AMA anti-abortion campaign was Dr. Horatio Storer, a Harvard Medical School graduate who dedicated much of his practice to OB-GYN work before he died in 1922.

The crusade proved to be a form of backlash against the shifting aspirations of women. It was “antifeminist at its core,” Reagan wrote.

You were saying?

[Adamas102]

You see no irony at all in the fact you can't begin to understand their motivations beyond the ones you ascribed to them while claiming ignorance?

The motivation YOU ascribed as the (supposedly) "prevailing sentiment" isn't difficult to understand. It's just not one that's rooted in reality. It's a fear tactic that is used to dupe ignorant people into thinking that women are just getting frivolous abortions on the same level as popping a plan B pill. And that's not even touching on the even more divorced-from-reality "argument" concerning timeline constraints by using the utterly moronic "well, what if a woman wants an abortion right as she's going into labor? what then?".

[Tentim]

The motivation YOU ascribed as the (supposedly) "prevailing sentiment" isn't difficult to understand. It's just not one that's rooted in reality. It's a fear tactic that is used to dupe ignorant people into thinking that women are just getting frivolous abortions on the same level as popping a plan B pill.

I'm sure there is some truth to it through frivolous is a word open to a thousand debates in that sentence.

[Calfredd]

I'm sure there is some truth to it through frivolous is a word open to a thousand debates in that sentence.

You are "sure" of quite a few things but have yet to back anything up. And speaking of frivolous (not having any serious purpose or value), you've made quite a few frivolous statements in this thread; very vague and empty as well.

[Adamas102]

I'm sure there is some truth to it through frivolous is a word open to a thousand debates in that sentence.

Ah, so you just THINK there's SOME truth to it. You see how ridiculous a position that is when it's used against a practice that is hugely beneficial to a lot of women? "Well I'm sure SOMEONE SOMEWHERE is doing it in a way I don't want them to so lets just make sure no one can do it"...

[s_bushido]

The best part about the "they just use abortion as a contraceptive!" garbage is that it's said by the exact same people who routinely push to restrict/ban contraceptives as well... It's almost like they're completely full of shit, and simply want pregnancy to be a punishment for women having the freedom to have sex when they want to.

[Calfredd]

The best part about the "they just use abortion as a contraceptive!" garbage is that it's said by the exact same people who routinely push to restrict/ban contraceptives as well... It's almost like they're completely full of shit, and simply want pregnancy to be a punishment for women having the freedom to have sex when they want to.

And this isn't even touching on the hypocrisy of these lawmakers who push for abortion and contraceptive bans only to have been found partaking quite freely in the usage of them.

[Xyonai]

You see no irony at all in the fact you can't begin to understand their motivations beyond the ones you ascribed to them while claiming ignorance?

Again, to reitterate: The motives of the individual voter matter very little when they band together and vote for the people who keep trying to push this malarkey. Like I'm going to be judging Joe Middleman as much as I am Paul McBigot for voting for the same slimy asshole who's made their blatantly hateful platform clear as day. Like I cannot stress enough how much I do not care that mister Middelman just likes Slimeball Johnson's tax policies when the Slimeball keeps trying to take away people's rights.

I think the debate is very much centered around the right to life vs autonomy. I doubt the misogyny angle is the prevailing sentiment ( you can maybe argue subconsciously but personally I find that a cope out).

I also doubt personally autonomy will be upheld as strongly as it is now in the future. Hopefully I've died peacefully in my sleep before then.

Personal Autonomy and Ones right to life are one in the same, really. Just as - and I know I'm repeating myself but I trust you're intellectually mature enough to not start pitching a fit about this analogy like the last guy I brought it up to - someone can't be forced to donate blood or give organs to someone against their will, even in the case that it will save someone else, they too should not be forced to incubate a child against their will.

[Tentim]

Again, to reitterate: The motives of the individual voter matter very little when they band together and vote for the people who keep trying to push this malarkey. Like I'm going to be judging Joe Middleman as much as I am Paul McBigot for voting for the same slimy asshole who's made their blatantly hateful platform clear as day. Like I cannot stress enough how much I do not care that mister Middelman just likes Slimeball Johnson's tax policies when the Slimeball keeps trying to take away people's rights.



Personal Autonomy and Ones right to life are one in the same, really. Just as - and I know I'm repeating myself but I trust you're intellectually mature enough to not start pitching a fit about this analogy like the last guy I brought it up to - someone can't be forced to donate blood or give organs to someone against their will, even in the case that it will save someone else, they too should not be forced to incubate a child against their will.

Can't yet. I hold out little hope of that remaining long term. People want a utopia and god help us I think they will actually try to build one.

[Endus]

The best part about the "they just use abortion as a contraceptive!" garbage is that it's said by the exact same people who routinely push to restrict/ban contraceptives as well... It's almost like they're completely full of shit, and simply want pregnancy to be a punishment for women having the freedom to have sex when they want to.

I'm not sure where the exact line falls with "contraception", because I think the original word was developed to cover things that prevented conception. And abortion occurs after conception. So I'll usually swap in "birth control".

And once you rephrase it, the argument's just fucking stupid, because abortion clearly is birth control. If they mean "they just use abortion like it's a condom or birth control pill!", then my response is gonna be a simple "Yep. And? It's birth control like both of those are. This is literally one of its intended uses. Why are you just stating the obvious?"

Like, congrats. It's not an argument. You're just accurately describing the legitimate use of birth control. It appears their issue, as you noted, is birth control, and that women are not handmaidens/brood mares used only as personal servants and objects for procreation.

[Twdft]

This is a debate that's almost uniquely American at this point. The rest of the developed world, and increasing members of the developing world, are enshrining abortion rights into their legal systems. The USA is particularly backwards and regressive, and not typical of other developed nations, let alone other Western nations specifically.

Yeah well, you'll probably be surprised to hear that abortion is still illegal in Germany. We do have a lot of exceptions so pretty much nobody is actually thrown into jail for it. Still sad and to be quite honest irritating as hell.

[Santti]

Yeah well, you'll probably be surprised to hear that abortion is still illegal in Germany. We do have a lot of exceptions so pretty much nobody is actually thrown into jail for it. Still sad and to be quite honest irritating as hell.

I'd imagine that's how it works in most places.

[Twdft]

I'd imagine that's how it works in most places.

It's practically ok, but the fact remains that abortion in Germany is not a right. It is a crime not pursued.

[Santti]

It's practically ok, but the fact remains that abortion in Germany is not a right. It is a crime not pursued.

It's still considered a crime, even if the abortion is performed under the exemptions listed? Just, a crime without any penalties?

No, that can't be. The wording used in the exemptions states "is not unlawful if..."

[Tentim]

I'm not sure where the exact line falls with "contraception", because I think the original word was developed to cover things that prevented conception. And abortion occurs after conception. So I'll usually swap in "birth control".

And once you rephrase it, the argument's just fucking stupid, because abortion clearly is birth control. If they mean "they just use abortion like it's a condom or birth control pill!", then my response is gonna be a simple "Yep. And? It's birth control like both of those are. This is literally one of its intended uses. Why are you just stating the obvious?"

Like, congrats. It's not an argument. You're just accurately describing the legitimate use of birth control. It appears their issue, as you noted, is birth control, and that women are not handmaidens/brood mares used only as personal servants and objects for procreation.

I mean they say the same thing about your arguement. Just they argue " its life". Issue is there are more of them then you.