US Supreme court have overturned Roe V Wade
Discussion
Electro1980 said:
Which is a terrible argument. Plenty of things are legislated and decided upon by people who are not impacted directly. That is nothing more than an attempt to shut down any discussion. The fact is that most people don’t want to have a reasonable discussion about a complex issue. They want a reductive argument where you are either right or wrong.
No, a terrible argument would be you assuming you have any right or say over what anyone else does with their body.I've not seen any reasonable discussion about this complex issue from the 'pro-life' side of the debate. They just seem to keep ranting about killing babies.
Silverbullet767 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Sarah Huckerbee Sanders, rabid pro lifer, gave a speech the other day saying "we will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in the classroom"
Free bulletproof vest for pregnant woman?thewarlock said:
Electro1980 said:
Which is a terrible argument. Plenty of things are legislated and decided upon by people who are not impacted directly. That is nothing more than an attempt to shut down any discussion. The fact is that most people don’t want to have a reasonable discussion about a complex issue. They want a reductive argument where you are either right or wrong.
No, a terrible argument would be you assuming you have any right or say over what anyone else does with their body.I've not seen any reasonable discussion about this complex issue from the 'pro-life' side of the debate. They just seem to keep ranting about killing babies.
That is precisely people "having a right or say over what anyone else does with their body".
In this debate one first has to take a view on whether ANY unborn child has any "rights" or not.
andyA700 said:
Newarch said:
Rufus Stone said:
BlackWidow13 said:
The father on any view ranks bottom when it comes to decisions during pregnancy.
How sad is that.
BTW, a female baby would also keep his bloodline going. Did he mean family name?
Ntv said:
thewarlock said:
Electro1980 said:
Which is a terrible argument. Plenty of things are legislated and decided upon by people who are not impacted directly. That is nothing more than an attempt to shut down any discussion. The fact is that most people don’t want to have a reasonable discussion about a complex issue. They want a reductive argument where you are either right or wrong.
No, a terrible argument would be you assuming you have any right or say over what anyone else does with their body.I've not seen any reasonable discussion about this complex issue from the 'pro-life' side of the debate. They just seem to keep ranting about killing babies.
That is precisely people "having a right or say over what anyone else does with their body".
In this debate one first has to take a view on whether ANY unborn child has any "rights" or not.
tangerine_sedge said:
No you don't, only people at the extreme ends of the debate have a certain view on that. The law does what the law often does, and 'fudges' it. Hence why the termination dates are different across jurisdictions. This suits the vast majority of the population who sit in the middle of the debate. Most people agree that life doesn't start at conception, and most agree that you can't terminate a baby just before birth, therefore somewhere in the middle is a compromise.
And most people would be wrong.https://www.justthefacts.org/get-the-facts/when-li...
Rufus Stone said:
tangerine_sedge said:
No you don't, only people at the extreme ends of the debate have a certain view on that. The law does what the law often does, and 'fudges' it. Hence why the termination dates are different across jurisdictions. This suits the vast majority of the population who sit in the middle of the debate. Most people agree that life doesn't start at conception, and most agree that you can't terminate a baby just before birth, therefore somewhere in the middle is a compromise.
And most people would be wrong.https://www.justthefacts.org/get-the-facts/when-li...
Rufus Stone said:
tangerine_sedge said:
No you don't, only people at the extreme ends of the debate have a certain view on that. The law does what the law often does, and 'fudges' it. Hence why the termination dates are different across jurisdictions. This suits the vast majority of the population who sit in the middle of the debate. Most people agree that life doesn't start at conception, and most agree that you can't terminate a baby just before birth, therefore somewhere in the middle is a compromise.
And most people would be wrong.https://www.justthefacts.org/get-the-facts/when-li...
tangerine_sedge said:
Ntv said:
thewarlock said:
Electro1980 said:
Which is a terrible argument. Plenty of things are legislated and decided upon by people who are not impacted directly. That is nothing more than an attempt to shut down any discussion. The fact is that most people don’t want to have a reasonable discussion about a complex issue. They want a reductive argument where you are either right or wrong.
No, a terrible argument would be you assuming you have any right or say over what anyone else does with their body.I've not seen any reasonable discussion about this complex issue from the 'pro-life' side of the debate. They just seem to keep ranting about killing babies.
That is precisely people "having a right or say over what anyone else does with their body".
In this debate one first has to take a view on whether ANY unborn child has any "rights" or not.
You've completely mis-interpreted the point I've made.
BTW, "most agree you can't terminate a baby just before birth" ... would your "just before" align with one third of the pregnancy? And why do you deny women rights over their bodies for those three months?
It was also be very strange of latest termination dates were aligned precisely across different jurisdictions btw. Unheard of.
Edited by Ntv on Monday 27th June 14:13
BlackWidow13 said:
Who fact checks the fact check checkers? InitialDave said:
Ntv said:
So why do we - and most other countries - ban abortions beyond a certain period of pregnancy.
We don't. Rufus Stone said:
BlackWidow13 said:
Who fact checks the fact check checkers? BlackWidow13 said:
Personally I hope that this decision results in the destruction of the GOP in the midterms.
However, I suspect that too a large part of America has lurched towards the evangelical Christian Right, and as many voters who are appalled by this decision, there will be a similar number willing to vote to endorse it.
I was wondering this too. I wonder if it will lead to people moving between states more, resulting in a even clearer division between red and blue states? It might be the best for all, if the country splits and you can choose which one you want to live in, instead of the country tearing itself apart in all directions. However, I suspect that too a large part of America has lurched towards the evangelical Christian Right, and as many voters who are appalled by this decision, there will be a similar number willing to vote to endorse it.
Rufus Stone said:
Newarch said:
It is preferable to the alternative, where the father or other people have more say over what a woman chooses to do with her body/unborn child.
A woman can do what she likes with her own body, the issue is should she have that right over someone elses.It's also a mess, in that the same direct arguments HAVE to be applied differently, due to the clear biological differences.
If a guy gets a girl pregnant, and she wants the baby he cannot stop it, despite it meaning he will be responsible for it for 18+ years, with a huge care responsibility, plus a financial one. The argument here is "you could have avoided sex/used protection so live with your decision". The focus is on the woman's body for the 9 months, not the impact on the man for the rest of their life. The pro-life group extend exactly the same argument but for women - "you should have not had sex if you didn't want it" and put the focus on the cells/child (depending how you look at it), rather than the 9 months of pregnancy (and beyond). We talk a bit about impact on the child if their mum didn't want it (crappy life), but if a mum wants a kid despite the wishes of the father we don't consider the impacts of a crappy father. The difference to a pro-lifer is that the life has already begun in their view, and so that overrules the woman's choice, as she could have chosen to use protection etc*.
We tend to classify when life begins partly on the wishes of the parents - if they want the baby it is understandably a tragedy with a miscarriage. Several friends celebrate the life of their unborn child each year. You'd be a terrible person to tell them "it was just a bunch of cells". Yet if it is an abortion at the same time period, we don't view it as a life in many people's cases. Again, this is for obvious reasons, but it shows the inconsistency around how we define when life starts, and that is the big question which separates pro-life and pro-choice people.
- Of course that is also ignoring the rape/incest/medical ones where the woman had zero choice, which completely don't fit into that argument of having a choice to have sex. And of course that 9 months of pregnancy is a HUGE thing, for obvious reasons. It also ignores than many hypocritical (but not all) pro-lifers are happy to allow guns and so on, which result in many deaths each year.
Then in addition, there's the completely different argument to this, which is that the federal government hasn't made any decision, it's "just" made it a state level decision. The States and Europe are in a strange position - in Europe in general there is a move towards a federal EU state, which makes more decisions instead of each country. The GOP in the US are basically more wanting to turn the United States into a Europe like place, where the overall government has no say and each state is an autonomous country making it's own rules. One side is a group of countries becoming more like a group of united states, the other side is a United States falling apart and wanting to go their own way. In theory if the US splits you could then pick a state which matches what you want, and move there instead. It could help clear up some of the massive fighting - if "everyone" in a state wants to everyone to walk around with machine guns then let them do that, and suffer the consequences. It could be better for everyone rather than them all being pissed off that they feel they're being forced into things they disagree with (on both sides of the debate). Of course it won't help a trans kid born into the "GOP country" if it did happen, even if it allows them to escape it later in life if they moved.
Ntv said:
We do. We ban abortions other than under limited circumstances - principally grave risk to the mother. Abortions for reasons other than these limited circumstances are banned after 24 weeks. They are against the law.
They are not banned. They are not against the law.They are permitted.
That permission carrying a requirement of medical necessity does not change this.
InitialDave said:
Ntv said:
We do. We ban abortions other than under limited circumstances - principally grave risk to the mother. Abortions for reasons other than these limited circumstances are banned after 24 weeks. They are against the law.
They are not banned. They are not against the law.They are permitted.
That permission carrying a requirement of medical necessity does not change this.
Welcome to pendants' corner. The apostrophe will have pleased you.
They are permitted in cases of medical necessity. As I have said above. Otherwise they are banned, or illegal, if you prefer.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff