[Abortion Thread] A Tough Pill To Swallow

[The Cascadian Isles and Shores]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/dobbs-mississippi-supreme-court-abortion-roe-wade/index.html

Today the supreme court of the united states released the ruling overturning the landmark case Roe v Wade revoking the constitutional right to an abortion. In a 6-3 vote.

---

Friday’s historic opinion, written by Justice Alito and joined by the Supreme Court's conservative bloc, overturns almost 50 years of precedent. Justice Alito's guiding principle is that a right to an abortion cannot be found in the Constitution. He adheres to a legal philosophy known as “original intent,” which involves scrutinizing the founding document's language to derive direction on contemporary issues.

Adding this thread to the existing abortion thread would have put that thread over the limit. This is now the abortion thread.

Constitutional right? What amendment allows you to murder a child?

Listen. I'm pretty basically smack middle of libertarian right, not based on the political compass test, but based off reason and logic.

I am a Christian so I disagree with abortion but as a libertarian/constitutionalist understand that the federal government shouldn't have the power to control it one way or the other. The overturning of Roe v. Wade does not make it illegal nationwide in the US to have an abortion, rather it overturns an unconstitutional court case. Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional as the federal government only has the powers given to it and/or (depending on the amendment) the powers the states are not allowed to have per the Constitution.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Constitutional right? What amendment allows you to murder a child?

Listen. I'm pretty basically smack middle of libertarian right, not based on the political compass test, but based off reason and logic.

I am a Christian...

Three contradictions in two paragraphs lmfao
Also libertarian right = reactionary bourgeoisie

[Celritannia]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/dobbs-mississippi-supreme-court-abortion-roe-wade/index.html

Today the supreme court of the united states released the ruling overturning the landmark case Roe v Wade revoking the constitutional right to an abortion. In a 6-3 vote.

---

Adding this thread to the existing abortion thread would have put that thread over the limit. This is now the abortion thread.

Constitutional right? What amendment allows you to murder a child?

Listen. I'm pretty basically smack middle of libertarian right, not based on the political compass test, but based off reason and logic.

I am a Christian so I disagree with abortion but as a libertarian/constitutionalist understand that the federal government shouldn't have the power to control it one way or the other. The overturning of Roe v. Wade does not make it illegal nationwide in the US to have an abortion, rather it overturns an unconstitutional court case. Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional as the federal government only has the powers given to it and/or (depending on the amendment) the powers the states are not allowed to have per the Constitution.

> Libertarian
> Likes rights removed from women

Curious.

[The Alma Mater]

Constitutional right? What amendment allows you to murder a child?

What amendment states that other people have the right to use your body?

[Great Heathen Air Force]

Presumably you understand why this is not compelling though, right?
You haven't given us a good argument. You haven't given us the words of an authority. You've just told us that there is an authority (trust me), and you can't remember what he said, but he definitely agrees with your position (trust me.)
Whereas I can think of many good reasons why the dividing line of "fetus" is strange and arbitrary. I'm not trying to mock you. I mean that sincerely. But I can't take your position seriously.

I can understand why you can't take my specific position seriously, although I still hold to it and I will talk to him about this later so I can actually go over the position properly.
But when it comes to the general notion of life beginning during pregnancy, I don't think you can ignore that. It's a point I think the pro-abortion side needs to address.

There isn't a "pro-abortion" side. Or if there is, it consists entirely of exceedingly edgy teenagers and misanthropes.

The pro-choice side doesn't generally dispute that life begins during pregnancy. And I'm actually fine if you want to say that life begins at conception. I think that makes more sense then drawing a line arbitrarily. Though if you have to draw a line, it should probably have to do with brain development. Since that's pretty vital to who you are as a person.

[Spirit of Hope]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/dobbs-mississippi-supreme-court-abortion-roe-wade/index.html

Today the supreme court of the united states released the ruling overturning the landmark case Roe v Wade revoking the constitutional right to an abortion. In a 6-3 vote.

---

Adding this thread to the existing abortion thread would have put that thread over the limit. This is now the abortion thread.

Constitutional right? What amendment allows you to murder a child?

Listen. I'm pretty basically smack middle of libertarian right, not based on the political compass test, but based off reason and logic.

I am a Christian so I disagree with abortion but as a libertarian/constitutionalist understand that the federal government shouldn't have the power to control it one way or the other. The overturning of Roe v. Wade does not make it illegal nationwide in the US to have an abortion, rather it overturns an unconstitutional court case. Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional as the federal government only has the powers given to it and/or (depending on the amendment) the powers the states are not allowed to have per the Constitution.

The 9th and 14th Amendments. The first saying that the people have rights even if not explicitly set down in the constitution the second saying that states can't take away peoples rights. I would encourage you to look at what substantive due process is.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So did McFall accidentally get overturned since it's now ok to compel people on the pain of death to provide sustenance to other people?

[Great Heathen Air Force]

So I guess there's no real purpose to arguing over it

Then why are you here?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Also cant wait for all the contortions the sanctimonious millionaires will make when they fly from Texas to NY to get their fetus ejected.

[Khurkhogur]

There isn't a "pro-abortion" side. Or if there is, it consists entirely of exceedingly edgy teenagers and misanthropes.
The pro-choice side doesn't generally dispute that life begins during pregnancy. And I'm actually fine if you want to say that life begins at conception. I think that makes more sense then drawing a line arbitrarily. Though if you have to draw a line, it should probably have to do with brain development. Since that's pretty vital to who you are as a person.

I'm using the terms "pro-" and "anti-abortion" because I want to avoid colorful, propaganda-ish terms about both positions. I don't think people who support the right to abortion necessarily think abortion is a great thing that should be done all the time, but they do "support abortion" in the sense that they want to allow it. And "pro-life" is obviously a loaded term as well.
I think a line should be drawn because it's pretty clear that aborting early in the pregnancy is not really "killing" something. If you get rid of a zygote, that's not killing a human being nor should it be treated that way. But if you abort a fetus a month before birth, I don't see how that's all that different from killing a baby. Of course, drawing a line will always be arbitrary. But I think it's better to have an arbitrary line than none at all.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

There isn't a "pro-abortion" side. Or if there is, it consists entirely of exceedingly edgy teenagers and misanthropes.
The pro-choice side doesn't generally dispute that life begins during pregnancy. And I'm actually fine if you want to say that life begins at conception. I think that makes more sense then drawing a line arbitrarily. Though if you have to draw a line, it should probably have to do with brain development. Since that's pretty vital to who you are as a person.

I'm using the terms "pro-" and "anti-abortion" because I want to avoid colorful, propaganda-ish terms about both positions. I don't think people who support the right to abortion necessarily think abortion is a great thing that should be done all the time, but they do "support abortion" in the sense that they want to allow it. And "pro-life" is obviously a loaded term as well.
I think a line should be drawn because it's pretty clear that aborting early in the pregnancy is not really "killing" something. If you get rid of a zygote, that's not killing a human being nor should it be treated that way. But if you abort a fetus a month before birth, I don't see how that's all that different from killing a baby. Of course, drawing a line will always be arbitrary. But I think it's better to have an arbitrary line than none at all.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61898437
So... is terminating this pregnancy still murder?

[Khurkhogur]

So I guess there's no real purpose to arguing over it

Then why are you here?

I'd like to promote my worldview, even if I know that it will be fundamentally rejected by many people on the other side

[Khurkhogur]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61898437
So... is terminating this pregnancy still murder?

We discussed this in the last abortion thread. I'll go back and pull up my response.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61898437
So... is terminating this pregnancy still murder?

Addendum: isn't a 16 week abortion Streng Verboten in a number of US states right now?

[Great Heathen Air Force]

Constitutional right? What amendment allows you to murder a child?

Hmm... If the 2nd Amendment implies that all American Citizens are de facto members of the militia (as is sometimes suggested by its proponents.) And the 3rd Amendment states that "no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner..."

Then it follows naturally that fetal militiamen cannot be quartered inside a woman without her consent.

Now you may argue that a woman is not a house. But I shall rebut you with the Commodores Thesis.

[Khurkhogur]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61898437
So... is terminating this pregnancy still murder?

This was my response yesterday when you brought it up: "I would completely agree that this is insane. Obviously the pregnancy is not viable and the mother's life is at risk. There is no reason not to do an abortion at that point and the fact that it's not being allowed is perverse."
If the baby's not going to survive anyway, it's not murder to abort it to save the mother. A much better way to challenge me would be to bring up an example of a case where the baby would survive birth but the mother would not, that would be an actual dilemma.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61898437
So... is terminating this pregnancy still murder?

This was my response yesterday when you brought it up: "I would completely agree that this is insane. Obviously the pregnancy is not viable and the mother's life is at risk. There is no reason not to do an abortion at that point and the fact that it's not being allowed is perverse."

Yet terminating such a pregnancy is now illegal in Idaho, South Dakota and Arkansas.

[New haven america]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61898437
So... is terminating this pregnancy still murder?

This was my response yesterday when you brought it up: "I would completely agree that this is insane. Obviously the pregnancy is not viable and the mother's life is at risk. There is no reason not to do an abortion at that point and the fact that it's not being allowed is perverse."

Well it either is or is going to be illegal in 3 states and counting now, so...

[Khurkhogur]

Yet terminating such a pregnancy is now illegal in Idaho, South Dakota and Arkansas.

And I think that's wrong. Why do you think I support that when I've said numerous times that abortion should be allowed when the mother's life is at risk?

[Page]

Yet terminating such a pregnancy is now illegal in Idaho, South Dakota and Arkansas.

And I think that's wrong. Why do you think I support that when I've said numerous times that abortion should be allowed when the mother's life is at risk?

The entire pro-life movement is culpable in all the coming atrocities, including denial of life-saving abortions and the criminalization of naturally-occurring miscarriages.

[Great Heathen Air Force]

There isn't a "pro-abortion" side. Or if there is, it consists entirely of exceedingly edgy teenagers and misanthropes.
The pro-choice side doesn't generally dispute that life begins during pregnancy. And I'm actually fine if you want to say that life begins at conception. I think that makes more sense then drawing a line arbitrarily. Though if you have to draw a line, it should probably have to do with brain development. Since that's pretty vital to who you are as a person.

I'm using the terms "pro-" and "anti-abortion" because I want to avoid colorful, propaganda-ish terms about both positions. I don't think people who support the right to abortion necessarily think abortion is a great thing that should be done all the time, but they do "support abortion" in the sense that they want to allow it. And "pro-life" is obviously a loaded term as well.
I think a line should be drawn because it's pretty clear that aborting early in the pregnancy is not really "killing" something. If you get rid of a zygote, that's not killing a human being nor should it be treated that way. But if you abort a fetus a month before birth, I don't see how that's all that different from killing a baby. Of course, drawing a line will always be arbitrary. But I think it's better to have an arbitrary line than none at all.

"Pro-abortion" is absolutely a "colorful, propaganda-ish term." It is only used by the pro-life lobby, as a term of derision, and by virtually no one else.

In any case: Most abortions do not take place late in pregnancy, and when they do there are usually legitimate medical reasons why this is happening. Women do not generally just wait until the last minute out of laziness.

Instead they may have discovered, for example, that their baby has Harlequin Ichthyosis, and has about a 50% chance of dying in the first few weeks, and if they survive they will spend the rest of their life disfigured and in great pain. And they want to spare them that. Or, perhaps, the fetus may have died, but is not naturally passing on it's own, and must be removed through abortion. There are many reasons, and they're usually very personal, and very painful. Many of these women want to be mothers, and carried the pregnancy this far in the hope that they would be, but now they are faced with a terrible circumstance, and must make a difficult choice. And it's quite intrusive for the government to barge into that.

[Torisakia]

There's gotta be one state or territory out there that allows them past 40 weeks. Surely there is.

New Jersey has no time restrictions on them. There may well be other states as well.

Cool. Next question: Do they allow self-abortion?

[Khurkhogur]

The entire pro-life movement is culpable in all the coming atrocities, including denial of life-saving abortions and the criminalization of naturally-occurring miscarriages.

Ok, so are you culpable in the brutal exploitation of people in Africa, China, and elsewhere by using a computer/phone produced with the fruits of their labor? Or does that sort of logic not apply to you? It's easy to throw stones at people you don't like.

[The Alma Mater]

The entire pro-life movement is culpable in all the coming atrocities, including denial of life-saving abortions and the criminalization of naturally-occurring miscarriages.

Ok, so are you culpable in the brutal exploitation of people in Africa, China, and elsewhere by using a computer/phone produced with products from their labor?

Yes, absolutely.

[WayNeacTia]

I just don’t understand. The world is approaching 8 Billion people and we are hanging on by a fucking thread just to try and support that. Millions are going hungry due to crop failures in California due to the drought. People can afford shit as it stands. The child welfare system is so overhwhelmed that it cannot cope. Women seeking an abortion are making a conscious choice to try and stem that tide. A mistake is made and a fetus is conceived. A woman knows that she cannot care for that child, due to whatever circumstances , and now she is forced to carry that fetus to term, and then have that child grow up in poverty.

What the fuck does any of this help? What does this achieve? Why do the beliefs of a minority, trump the beliefs of a majority? I have yet to ever see a single pro-life person come up with a single tangible argument, other than the bible says abortion is murder. I don’t shit on anyone else’s beliefs, but they will sure as fuck shit in yours when it comes to abortion. You don’t believe in abortion? Don’t get one.