Roe v Wade discussions in the supreme court.

[Silvanus]

You want pro-life organizations to post skewed data to rationalize their position? You want that? I wouldn't dare link such a source in an argument, it would be beyond worthless.

I want pro-life organisations to take the slightest interest in investigating women's health. If they actually cared about that side of the argument, they would also be involved in researching the dangers posed by illegal abortions vs legal ones.

If you believe pro-life organisations are only capable of posting "skewed" data, then... urhm, ok, sure.

Prosperity.

Do you genuinely believe that through vaguely increasing "prosperity" (which, by the way, would take centuries), that illegal abortions would become as safe as legal ones-- that is, they'd become one of the safest procedures of all?

 

[tstorm823]

Do you genuinely believe that through vaguely increasing "prosperity" (which, by the way, would take centuries), that illegal abortions would become as safe as legal ones-- that is, they'd become one of the safest procedures of all?

Let me use Poland as an example. Groups like Guttmacher would have us believe that the real abortion rate in Poland is comparable to any other place, and that the ban on most abortions has just pushed people to more surreptitious means of abortion. And yet, their maternal mortality is very low, and a single case of a pregnant woman dying from lack of abortion access is a major national headline. There are two ways to read this data: either there are potentially 100,000 illegal abortions carried out in Poland every year without being substantially different in safety from legal abortions, or those thousands of estimated illegal abortions aren't taking place in the first place.

Either way, there aren't huge death counts from illegal abortions there.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Stats show over time, women have been making increasingly bad choices regarding who they sleep with

[Citation Needed]

 

[gorfias]

I think whomever sourced those Dworkin quotes and showed them to you had a severe agenda. Like, Dworkin was 110% anti-"traditional" marriage

I think she was a sad, physically, mentally and sexually abused disturbed woman who felt disenfranchised from mainstream society for many reasons and sought what she viewed as justice for herself and those like her. I think her off her rocker on many if not most things. And a metric ton of things have changed since she was active (example: since 2015, US women's wealth now surpasses men's and is argued to have grown even more since then.) All that given, her anaysis in this particular case, fits. Surely there are other reasons to support Roe, but her criticism does function. The recent Aziz Ansari incident helps illustrate that things aren't as simple as, "women want to be just as sexually predatory as men and without consequence" narrative might want.

[Citation Needed]

Withdrawn. Too many variables. Would increasing single motherhood be evidence of that problem? Stats regarding fewer men getting laid and more women sharing the same men? That women are less happy than ever? Even if I can link such stats, you would not necessarily agree that is material to the quality of choices they are making.

 

[bluegate]

Withdrawn. Too many variables. Would increasing single motherhood be evidence of that problem? Stats regarding fewer men getting laid and more women sharing the same men? That women are less happy than ever? Even if I can link such stats, you would not necessarily agree that is material to the quality of choices they are making.

Know what also helps increase the rate of single motherhood?

Decrease of the influence of religion. Specifically religions branding children born out of wedlock as bastards and religions branding people having a divorce as... well, something negative anyhow. There's less societal pressure on the father and mother to get together and stay together.

Increase in women's independence. In modern days, women are less dependant on a spouse to survive. Whether it's because of better education allowing them to get better paying jobs, or them being allowed to get jobs at all, or the government helping out with subsidies, unemployment benefits and what not.

Better social support for women with children, think the availability of day care centers and what not.

 

[Silvanus]

Let me use Poland as an example. Groups like Guttmacher would have us believe that the real abortion rate in Poland is comparable to any other place, and that the ban on most abortions has just pushed people to more surreptitious means of abortion. And yet, their maternal mortality is very low, and a single case of a pregnant woman dying from lack of abortion access is a major national headline. There are two ways to read this data: either there are potentially 100,000 illegal abortions carried out in Poland every year without being substantially different in safety from legal abortions, or those thousands of estimated illegal abortions aren't taking place in the first place.

Either way, there aren't huge death counts from illegal abortions there.

Those obviously aren't the only "two ways" to read that data, and you know it.

Possibility 3: There are a great number more illegal abortions carried out than are recorded, and the maternal morbidity rate in Poland is also drastically underrepresented.

Possibility 4, somewhere between your first possibility and mine: the rate of illegal abortions carried out is high, though perhaps not 100,000; and the safety is lower than legal abortions, but perhaps not as low as elsewhere, for whatever reason. So we come to a number anywhere between the two.

You don't have the data or the basis to back any of this up. It's a pity no pro-life organisation gives a shit about women's health, or they might have looked into it. But that's just it, eh? Their love of life ends at the point of birth.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Withdrawn. Too many variables. Would increasing single motherhood be evidence of that problem? Stats regarding fewer men getting laid and more women sharing the same men? That women are less happy than ever? Even if I can link such stats, you would not necessarily agree that is material to the quality of choices they are making.

If increasing single motherhood is a problem for you then you shouldn't be against abortion.

Also you know something that makes women less happy? Having to gestate an unwanted child for 9 months.

 

[Dreiko]

I'm pro life and pro abortion at the same time. I think we can do both.


I think once you have conception it's a baby, since even after birth the baby needs help from the world around it to survive. If you leave it out in the jungle to fend for itself it will be a very dead baby. So the basis of independant life-form that Roe is founded upon would technically allow us to abort kids up to 3 years old if not older, which is nonsense.


At the same time, the benefit to the mom and society for killing the baby is notable, and we often kill people in our society for the presumed benefit that comes out of it, which is why there is a death sentence and why cops get to legally shoot people by merely fearing they "might" do something to harm someone in the future.


I think abortion should be legal, but not something that is treated casually.


You fucked up and had to kill a baby to save yourself, that should be seen as shameful and abhorrent, but not criminal. It should be a heavy burden for your conscience on a moral level, not a social or legal one.


It still is "something", whatever you want to admit it is, and then you make it not be that, cause you are irresponsible and fucked up. That HAS to matter.


And of course, if you were raped or something, then all the above applies, but it should be over the head of the rapist and not the mom in this case.



There, done, if all the hardcore pro life people wanna claim it's a life, we first have to ban the death sentence and all forms of legal killing like self defense and so on, and if the pro life people wanna say it's an independent life form after birth but not before and it's just a part of the mom's body like a toe nail. they have to prove through science that newborns left in the wild can actually live and don't need other people to help em that they depend upon to live. Solved.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I think she was a sad, physically, mentally and sexually abused disturbed woman who felt disenfranchised from mainstream society for many reasons and sought what she viewed as justice for herself and those like her. I think her off her rocker on many if not most things. And a metric ton of things have changed since she was active (example: since 2015, US women's wealth now surpasses men's and is argued to have grown even more since then.) All that given, her anaysis in this particular case, fits. Surely there are other reasons to support Roe, but her criticism does function. The recent Aziz Ansari incident helps illustrate that things aren't as simple as, "women want to be just as sexually predatory as men and without consequence" narrative might want.

If you think somebody is crazy on "many if not most" issues, it's intellectually dishonest to cherry pick half an argument that you *do* like and discard the rest to say "see, feminists agree with me"

Holy shit dude

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It still is "something", whatever you want to admit it is, and then you make it not be that, cause you are irresponsible and fucked up. That HAS to matter.


And of course, if you were raped or something, then all the above applies, but it should be over the head of the rapist and not the mom in this case.

It's not just about irresponsible people. You could do everything correctly, use birth control, and still get pregnant because no method of birth control is 100% effective.

If you have billions of people having sex dozens or hundreds of times in a year you would still get millions of unwanted pregnancies even if everyone used proper birth control every single time they had sex.

 

[SilentPony]

SNIP

What if there is a defect in the fetus and it wont make it to viability, or will die soon after birth? Who is at shame then? Or if the birth of the baby will kill the mother, do we still apply abhorrence?
Its very judgmental to, well, judge a woman on their own personal choices. We don't say that about men who masturbate. Each of those sperm could have been a viable baby, should each man be considered abhorrent and shamed when they masturbate? Every time a woman has a period, she's missed the chance to have conceive a baby. Should she be judged for that?

Its a woman's choice, pure and simple. Any talk about babies, and shame, and responsibility, its all just dog-whistling for enslaving women.

 

[Dreiko]

It's not just about irresponsible people. You could do everything correctly, use birth control, and still get pregnant because no method of birth control is 100% effective.

If you have billions of people having sex dozens or hundreds of times in a year you would still get millions of unwanted pregnancies even if everyone used proper birth control every single time they had sex.

That has to factor into your choices, you have to have sex with that risk being part of the calculation you make in deciding to do so, which is why we have laws of age of consent and so on, adults are supposedly mature enough to responsibly handle making this choice. You can't pull a joker once luck is against you.

If someone was too young to be held responsible for that decision then again I can see the argument but otherwise no deal. Just like...do it in the butt or something. Have you ever wanted to have sex badly enough that you'd kill a baby for it? If you have, well, a butt is fine too right?

What if there is a defect in the fetus and it wont make it to viability, or will die soon after birth? Who is at shame then? Or if the birth of the baby will kill the mother, do we still apply abhorrence?
Its very judgmental to, well, judge a woman on their own personal choices. We don't say that about men who masturbate. Each of those sperm could have been a viable baby, should each man be considered abhorrent and shamed when they masturbate? Every time a woman has a period, she's missed the chance to have conceive a baby. Should she be judged for that?

Its a woman's choice, pure and simple. Any talk about babies, and shame, and responsibility, its all just dog-whistling for enslaving women.

Those things are the baby's fault, morally speaking, so again no culpability. That's just like having a newborn with a heart arrhythmia or something, nobody would blame the mom if the baby dies from such a thing, and if medically speaking it's determined that the baby is too damaged to survive then at that point it's like removing a tumor from the mom and not actual abortion. So yeah, I'm not crazy about this issue. People are used to thinking if you think the baby is alive you wanna just judge the mom. I just wanna be honest about reality as I see it, I don't have an agenda beyond that.



The masturbation argument is nonsencical. That's not the actual parallel, the parallel would be claiming each time a woman has her period when instead she could have been impregnated with those eggs she's bleeding out that it's murder. Who says this?


Eggs and sperm are not life, but fertilized embryos is life, it's really quite simple. Both sexes get to masturbate free from judgement.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

There, done, if all the hardcore pro life people wanna claim it's a life, we first have to ban the death sentence and all forms of legal killing like self defense and so on, and if the pro life people wanna say it's an independent life form after birth but not before and it's just a part of the mom's body like a toe nail. they have to prove through science that newborns left in the wild can actually live and don't need other people to help em that they depend upon to live. Solved.

Stupid demand, but:

Feral child - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It really just sounds like you want to have a target to judge

 

[gorfias]

If you think somebody is crazy on "many if not most" issues, it's intellectually dishonest to cherry pick half an argument that you *do* like and discard the rest to say "see, feminists agree with me"

Holy shit dude

That is incorrect. At least that's what they taught us in literature class. You don't pretend someone else's work is yours (and the analysis I offered here is hers). And regardless of all other surrounding matters, if you are reviewing a particular thing and a particular analysis fits, the rest is irrelevant. IE, Huck Finn is a kid's novel written by a comic orator. It couldn't possibly have serious, adult themes in it. I got pretty much intellectually body slammed for that one.

If increasing single motherhood is a problem for you then you shouldn't be against abortion.

I've written multiple times in this thread, I'm pro-choice. But I'm anti-Roe because I think it radical and illegit. I'm hoping more moderate law to result once this thing is over-turned.

 

[Dreiko]

Stupid demand, but:

Feral child - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It really just sounds like you want to have a target to judge

This child literally was "raised by monkeys", how is that independent? He just depended on mama Harambe instead of his birth mother. It's a literal, albeit unusual, foster care situation.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

That is incorrect. At least that's what they taught us in literature class. You don't pretend someone else's work is yours (and the analysis I offered here is hers). And regardless of all other surrounding matters, if you are reviewing a particular thing and a particular analysis fits, the rest is irrelevant. IE, Huck Finn is a kid's novel written by a comic orator. It couldn't possibly have serious, adult themes in it. I got pretty much intellectually body slammed for that one.

As you should have, because it's a stupid argument. Dworkin's argument was not, in any way, shape, or form, "legal access to abortions is bad because it makes whores out of nice girls who could've entered a stable and productive marriage with a Nice Guy who would have been personally and socially bolstered by marrying a virginal nice girl". That is, quite simply, Not Her Analysis.

It's so shockingly wrong that you may as well tell me the earth is flat because sometimes things fall off edges. For one thing, this is philosophy, not literature.

 

[SilentPony]

That has to factor into your choices, you have to have sex with that risk being part of the calculation you make in deciding to do so, which is why we have laws of age of consent and so on, adults are supposedly mature enough to responsibly handle making this choice. You can't pull a joker once luck is against you.

If someone was too young to be held responsible for that decision then again I can see the argument but otherwise no deal. Just like...do it in the butt or something. Have you ever wanted to have sex badly enough that you'd kill a baby for it? If you have, well, a butt is fine too right?


Those things are the baby's fault, morally speaking, so again no culpability. That's just like having a newborn with a heart arrhythmia or something, nobody would blame the mom if the baby dies from such a thing, and if medically speaking it's determined that the baby is too damaged to survive then at that point it's like removing a tumor from the mom and not actual abortion. So yeah, I'm not crazy about this issue. People are used to thinking if you think the baby is alive you wanna just judge the mom. I just wanna be honest about reality as I see it, I don't have an agenda beyond that.



The masturbation argument is nonsencical. That's not the actual parallel, the parallel would be claiming each time a woman has her period when instead she could have been impregnated with those eggs she's bleeding out that it's murder. Who says this?

Wait wait wait, how is it not an actual abortion if the fetus has a defect? Why is it okay to view them as a tumor, and not a baby? Also, why is it okay to remove a tumor? Tumors are alive! Tumors have rights #SaveAllTumors.
If you're thing is its a baby regardless, then its a baby regardless if its a defective baby. Its still an abortion. Its still the killing of a baby. It just happens to be a baby that will die on its own regardless.

Also in terms of shaming women who have periods, the Catholic church for centuries has. And the Church and most anti-abortion groups also view the use of contraceptives as abortion. That's where those wild statistics of "40,000 abortions happen in the US every day." come from. They're including sex with contraceptives.
And in terms of men and sperm cells, sperm cells are alive. They can be used by fertility clinics. Its wasting precious life to masturbate and not save the sperm to be used in babies. Im just saying its you're pro-life, you're pro-life. No exceptions.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

This child literally was "raised by monkeys", how is that independent? He just depended on mama Harambe instead of his birth mother. It's a literal, albeit unusual, foster care situation.

Most complicated animals require support from another in some fashion. We still eat cows

 

[gorfias]

As you should have, because it's a stupid argument. Dworkin's argument was not, in any way, shape, or form, "legal access to abortions is bad because it makes whores out of nice girls who could've entered a stable and productive marriage with a Nice Guy who would have been personally and socially bolstered by marrying a virginal nice girl". That is, quite simply, Not Her Analysis.

It's so shockingly wrong that you may as well tell me the earth is flat because sometimes things fall off edges. For one thing, this is philosophy, not literature.

Never wrote it was. Her analysis was that 9 elite men invented a right to abortion that made it easier for those men to exploit and use "nice girls". On that, I think she has a point. Period.

EDIT: ITMT, reviewing

 

[Dreiko]

Wait wait wait, how is it not an actual abortion if the fetus has a defect? Why is it okay to view them as a tumor, and not a baby? Also, why is it okay to remove a tumor? Tumors are alive! Tumors have rights #SaveAllTumors.
If you're thing is its a baby regardless, then its a baby regardless if its a defective baby. Its still an abortion. Its still the killing of a baby. It just happens to be a baby that will die on its own regardless.

Also in terms of shaming women who have periods, the Catholic church for centuries has. And the Church and most anti-abortion groups also view the use of contraceptives as abortion. That's where those wild statistics of "40,000 abortions happen in the US every day." come from. They're including sex with contraceptives.
And in terms of men and sperm cells, sperm cells are alive. They can be used by fertility clinics. Its wasting precious life to masturbate and not save the sperm to be used in babies. Im just saying its you're pro-life, you're pro-life. No exceptions.

It's euthanasia, not abortion. And as I've established, until we illegalize all other more common forms of legal killings, abortion and euthanasia too are just fine in my book. I know it's callous to say this, but this is what others say when they say they're pro choice, they just mask it in niceties about freedom and equity. I'm just taking the shine out of it and being honest about what I see transpiring. I don't like it, but that's how I see it.


Oh churches and religions of all faiths shame body functions too, I'm agnostic. Definitely not defending them lol.

If you don't use sperm they don't just live infinitely in your balls, they eventually expire. If you want to legislate a sperm life doctrine where women and sperm banks have to accept every man's living sperm before it expires in his testes so that their precious life can be saved, I think you may have some opposition. Also it would be quite expensive, housing all this semen. It wouldn't really end masturbation though, just alter the finish direction. Remember that south park episode about football being turned gay where Butters saved all his semen and made people drink it? Every house would be like his closet lol.