[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Jykku]

i mean tbf most of the people in the thread ARE sick
totally radical and bodacious, even

Yeah, its sickening that people think its okay to Kill Children when they don't need to be killed.

As pointed out literally hundreds of times by now: a fetus is not a child until it's born. Born = removed from the womb and can survive without feeding off its mother.

...I didn't even mention anything about rape...

Yeah, but surely you think its foolish that some of the people in here claim that a fetus is a rapist.

In the sexual sense, it's not. But in the strictest technical "using a person's body without their consent" sense, it is.
Additionally, a fetus is functionally just a literal parasite until it's born.

[Elwher]

Yeah, its sickening that people think its okay to Kill Children when they don't need to be killed.

As pointed out literally hundreds of times by now: a fetus is not a child until it's born. Born = removed from the womb and can survive without feeding off its mother.

You are aware, one hopes, that by that definition a breast-fed infant is not a child? For that matter, even a bottle-fed infant requires someone to feed off of for its survival.

[Thepeopl]

As pointed out literally hundreds of times by now: a fetus is not a child until it's born. Born = removed from the womb and can survive without feeding off its mother.

You are aware, one hopes, that by that definition a breast-fed infant is not a child? For that matter, even a bottle-fed infant requires someone to feed off of for its survival.

As a breastfeeding , working mom I can attest that I pumped the milk and someone else fed my child during working hours. My freezer contained several litres of breast milk after 6 months.
Some hospitals even offer breast milk to mums who don't produce (enough) milk themselves.

And yes anyone can feed a baby a bottle. No mum required. Very different from fetus in womb.
A pregnant person cannot walk away from fetus without an abortion.

[Neutraligon]

For those who where ok with the Texas law...I am sure you are ok with this law as well...right? https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/10/d ... ge-40.html

[Genivaria]

For those who where ok with the Texas law...I am sure you are ok with this law as well...right? https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/10/d ... ge-40.html

That's actually not going near as far as the Texas law, there's nothing about allowing vigilante citizens to sue people for a non-crime involving this.

[Elwher]

For those who where ok with the Texas law...I am sure you are ok with this law as well...right? https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/10/d ... ge-40.html

That's actually not going near as far as the Texas law, there's nothing about allowing vigilante citizens to sue people for a non-crime involving this.

On the other hand, unlike the Texas law, it mandates a permanent situation rather than a one-shot procedure.

[Ifreann]

That's actually not going near as far as the Texas law, there's nothing about allowing vigilante citizens to sue people for a non-crime involving this.

On the other hand, unlike the Texas law, it mandates a permanent situation rather than a one-shot procedure.

I believe vasectomies are reversible.

[Page]

For those who where ok with the Texas law...I am sure you are ok with this law as well...right? https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/10/d ... ge-40.html

I get the intent behind it, that it's about sending a message, but I'm not sure stunts like this contribute to the protection of women's reproductive rights. They may in fact be doing more harm, because on some level it continues to normalize the already pervasive idea that one's body is state property.

And as I've stated before, I don't think we ought to lean too hard on the pro-choice tactic of condemning men controlling women's bodies while eschewing responsibility, because the fact is even a unanimously female government would have no more right to police individual women's reproductive choices. That the currently existing governments are male dominated does add an extra level of awfulness, but we really ought to be pushing hard for bodily sovereignty at every turn.

To me, being pro-choice, pro-drug legalization, pro-assisted suicide, and anti-circumcision (of minors) is a single issue. If we aren't free to control our bodies, we have zero freedom.

[Sundiata]

On the other hand, unlike the Texas law, it mandates a permanent situation rather than a one-shot procedure.

I believe vasectomies are reversible.

Not always, I also can't recommend them morally.

[Ifreann]

I believe vasectomies are reversible.

Not always, I also can't recommend them morally.

I trust you're aware that your moral recommendations are not going to carry any weight with anyone.

[Page]

Not always, I also can't recommend them morally.

I trust you're aware that your moral recommendations are not going to carry any weight with anyone.

There isn't even any scriptural justification for such moral takes. What does it all hinge on, "be fruitful and multiply"? I don't see any reason why that implies humans need to be maximizing the population, one could just as easily interpret it as "just don't let yourselves go extinct."

[The New California Republic]

I believe vasectomies are reversible.

Not always, I also can't recommend them morally.

Not quite sure what your "moral" basis is for opposing them.

And success rates are dependent on time since it was carried out:

• 75% if you have your vasectomy reversed within 3 years
• Up to 55% after 3 to 8 years
• Between 40% and 45% after 9 to 14 years
• 30% after 15 to 19 years
• Less than 10% after 20 years

I'd imagine that the number of men seeking to reverse a vasectomy at the end of the scale where it ceases to have a reasonable chance of success is very few.

[Page]

Not always, I also can't recommend them morally.

Not quite sure what your "moral" basis is for opposing them.

And success rates are dependent on time since it was carried out:

• 75% if you have your vasectomy reversed within 3 years
• Up to 55% after 3 to 8 years
• Between 40% and 45% after 9 to 14 years
• 30% after 15 to 19 years
• Less than 10% after 20 years

I'd imagine that the number of men seeking to reverse a vasectomy at the end of the scale where it ceases to have a reasonable chance of success is very few.

I really keep meaning to get one, it's just the cost and the pain in the ass of arranging it that is stopping me. My wife takes birth control and is at an age when pregnancy is extremely rare, but truth be told just the thought that a woman could drug me at a party and rape me and I'd be on the hook for child support, however unlikely that is, is enough to make me want one.

[Necroghastia]

I believe vasectomies are reversible.

Not always, I also can't recommend them morally.

You have no problem "morally" recommending a surgery even more irreversible.

[Vassenor]

Not always, I also can't recommend them morally.

You have no problem "morally" recommending a surgery even more irreversible.

Controlling women is perfectly moral, remember.

[Ifreann]

I trust you're aware that your moral recommendations are not going to carry any weight with anyone.

There isn't even any scriptural justification for such moral takes. What does it all hinge on, "be fruitful and multiply"? I don't see any reason why that implies humans need to be maximizing the population, one could just as easily interpret it as "just don't let yourselves go extinct."

I'd guess that the logic would be that if one has -ectomied their vas deferens then having sex would just be sinful indulgence of lust instead of being properly procreative. But it's not a sin for post-menopausal women or otherwise infertile people to have sex.

Almost like all of God's weird rules about fucking are actually about controlling people's reproduction.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I believe vasectomies are reversible.

Not always, I also can't recommend them morally.

You have literally recommended that a large and critical part of a woman’s reproductive system be removed rather than perform an abortion. This is a less invasive and reversible procedure that addresses the problem before it becomes a problem, and you spout ‘omg onoz the moral problems!’

Hypocrite.

[Pentolia]

I'm against Abortion

[San Lumen]

I'm against Abortion

Would you mind elaborating?

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I'm against Abortion

A lot of people are, and are still pro-choice.

[Vassenor]

I'm against Abortion

ok

[Katganistan]

But under the laws and definitions in place at that time, no they were not. Laws can and do change, so do definitions.

I don't think anyone is arguing that laws don't change, because obviously they do. I'm not sure what your point here is.

Making a comparison that is utterly irrelevant.

[Katganistan]

This is rather specifically why I avoid using personhood or the lack thereof as a factor in my argument. I prefer to focus on the fact that even if the fetus WERE considered a person,it still wouldn't have the right to use another person's body without their consent.

But does that earn them the death penalty? When they didn't and don't have a choice in the matter?

They don't get a choice because no one gets to force someone else to use their body to sustain them. You are advocating removing the choice of women to do as they will with their own bodies, and removing their right to live as they see fit -- removing their right to an education, to a job, to NOT BE FORCED TO BEAR CHILDREN THEY DON'T WANT.

[Genivaria]

I believe vasectomies are reversible.

Not always, I also can't recommend them morally.

You support mandating forced pregnancies so thank you for again showing everyone your hypocrisy.

[Kowani]

Texas has now officially asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

Texas fired back at the Biden administration’s challenge to its nearly complete ban of abortions in a response brief filed Thursday asserting the government’s lawsuit was out of bounds, while also suggesting the court take another look at the validity of its landmark abortion decisions Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[…] The Biden administration then sued to challenge the law and U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, blocked SB 8, ruling it unconstitutional. Only 48 hours later, the Fifth Circuit, seen by many as the most conservative appeals court in the country, overturned Pitman's ruling in a 2-1 decision.

On Monday, the Department of Justice formally asked the Supreme Court to lift the Fifth Circuit's order that has allowed the law to continue to be enforced.

In its response filed Thursday, Texas claims the DOJ lacks equitable cause and jurisdiction to sue Texas over SB 8. The government alleges the law violates the 14th Amendment, but Texas argues the right to an abortion is not required by law.

“The idea that the constitution requires states to permit a woman to abort her unborn child is unsupported by any constitutional text, history, or tradition,” the brief states.

The Department of Justice suggested the high court could bypass the Fifth Circuit and hear arguments in the case. Texas says that if the court decides to take that route, it should consider overturning Roe and Casey.

“The Court erred in recognizing the right to abortion in Roe and in continuing to preserve it in Casey,” the response brief states. “Properly understood, the Constitution does not protect a right to elective abortion, and any laws affecting abortion should be subject only to a rational-basis test …. If it reaches the merits, the Court should overturn Roe and Casey and hold that SB 8 does not therefore violate the Fourteenth Amendment.”