Roe vs. Wade overturned

[ohhgeeitsme]

This is a common sentiment among misanthropes and pessimists but I don't get it. I might despise most humans but since we are around we might as well cheer for our own team. The other animals are not consuming the planet because they can't, not because they couldn't. The problems with existence are inherent to living organisms, not to humans.

Somehow I found your argument for abortion compelling, on the other hand. At this stage of humanity's development it makes sense to allow or encourage abortion.

But let me ask this. How does one get into a LATE stage abortion? Something is very wrong there, IMO. My sister, a leftist nurse, told me that in her experience many of these cases belong to young, downtrodden and intellectually inferior women (dumb, vulnerable), that might not realize they are pregnant for a astonishing amount of time. She even told me sterilization isn't far fetched for these cases. Imagine what she has seen to hold this eugenicist view while voting far-left.

Also, the beauty of sterilizing people like that is that it should satisfy those that support abortion due to antinatalism/efilism to the highest extent. Of course, it should be done with incentives and consent, nor forcefully.

It's not pessimism. It's being realistic and a logical thinker. It's objective reasoning (as much as one can be) despite subjective emotion and perspective based on how a person WANTS to view the world.

 

[9BBN]

The details of your examples are not relevant to me at all, that are not relevant to my point of view on this topic at all.

Are you even able to explain why?

These questions are clearly relevant to your position. You don't have to get defensive; you're obviously allowed to have your opinion. Yes the first two questions I asked are not about abortion, sure, but they address how your reasoning becomes absurd if you simply apply it anywhere else. Seriously, in order to be this pro-life, you would have to be against assisted suicide for the brain-dead, and then you would also have to support legislation requiring families and hospitals to keep brain-dead patients on life-support indefinitely. Because you staunchly refuse to answer my questions, perhaps out of fear of being recognized as radical, I genuinely don't know if you understand that America (and the Pope, by the way) has already legislated "brain-dead" to be considered not alive, because this is such a self-evident concept.

The third question is very clearly related to abortion, I don't know how you think you're dodging it. You can't claim zygotes can possess consciousness without substantiating that claim. Unless you think consciousness is not required for it to be murder, in which case why not consider masturbation wrong? Your own words, applied to sperm:

if allowed to continue to grow this sperm could live a full, happy, long life. This sperm did not create itself, but now that it is living it should be allowed to continue to live is my opinion, since it did nothing to deserve to killed for.

I figured you couldn't answer "why is masturbation okay" because it requires you to give a definition of "alive," which I don't even think you can do. Your definition is arbitrary: "life begins at conception!" And your reasoning is tautological: "because a zygote is alive and a sperm is not!"

if allowed to continue to grow this baby or fetus or "living entity" could live a full, happy, long life

This is untrue. A non-viable fetus cannot "grow" on its own. A mother who carries a fetus to pregnancy is not "allowing it to continue to grow;" the mother is growing the fetus. You act like zygotes are viable from conception, this is not true.

 

[Someone123]

Seriously, in order to be this pro-life, you would have to be against assisted suicide for the brain-dead, and then you would also have to support legislation requiring families and hospitals to keep brain-dead patients on life-support indefinitely.

This is so illogical that it is ridiculous to need to explain it to anyone- the living entity that some would call a baby or a fetus or a person has the full genetic footprint of a person and it is growing into a person that has a healthy life expectancy of over seventy years, and this is not in any way similar to a brain-dead patient on life support.

his is untrue. A non-viable fetus cannot "grow" on its own. A mother who carries a fetus to pregnancy is not "allowing it to continue to grow;" the mother is growing the fetus. You act like zygotes are viable from conception, this is not true.

Of course it needs to be in the mother's womb, we have all been there ,done that, it is nothing to be ashamed of. But it is living and it will continue to grow if it's life is not stopped- the whole purpose of abortion is to stop this life.

I'm not going to respond to each little point point by point. There is a concept of "agree to disagree": that you should familiarize yourself with- no one ever changes their mind in a debate this this, if they do it is one in a billion. I will not be that one in a billion, and neither will you.

I will continue to have my opinion and you will continue to have yours. I will continue to think that my opinion is vastly more ethical than yours, and you will think the opposite.

I will continue to think that your opinion is very illogical, and you will think the opposite.

Do you understand the concept of agree to disagree?

 

[9BBN]

This is so illogical that it is ridiculous to need to explain it to anyone- the living entity that some would call a baby or a fetus or a person has the full genetic footprint of a person and it is growing into a person that has a healthy life expectancy of over seventy years, and this is not in any way similar to a brain-dead patient on life support.

Has it possibly occurred to you that a non-viable fetus is a brain-dead human patient on life support? Without the mother, the fetus would die. Without life-support, the brain-dead patient will die. Both are brain-dead, both require life support to live. The difference is that the non-viable fetus has never yet had a brain. If you think a zygote has a right to life, why not a brain-dead patient? Why does the right to life depend on the life expectancy?

If a brain-dead adult has no right to life, why does a brain-less zygote get a right to life? Because it will grow to have a brain? A child doesn't get the legal rights of an adult just because it is expected to grow into one eventually. Things don't get to assume the rights of what they have not yet become.

 

[Someone123]

This zygote did not create itself, it was the actions of others that created it and it is growing at an exponential rate and it should be allowed to continue to grow- brain-dead patients are not in the process of growing at an exponential rate into a fully formed person. KiIling this lviing being is wrong in my opinion, but different people have different ethical standards. The fetus is not brain-dead, brain-dead beings do not suddenly start growing a full, healthy brain- this is a silly analogy. At what point there is some awareness of being alive or some sensation is debatable, and I have no interest in debating this because when this happens does not matter in relation to my stance on this issue- this living entity does not deserve to be killed, they deserve to be able to continue to grow. There is no chance I will ever change my mind on this issue, you analogies are absurd and illogical and your stance on this issue is unethical in my opinion.

 

[9BBN]

The fetus is not brain-dead, brain-dead beings do not suddenly start growing a full, healthy brain- this is a silly analogy.

My analogy is that both non-viable fetuses and brain-dead patients have zero brain functioning, and both require life-support to live. So apparently your opinion is that the right to life simply depends on the life expectancy of the patient. Why? And why does a never-been-conscious, non-viable fetus necessarily get to have the rights of a viable fetus? A child does not get the rights of an adult just because it will grow into one.

Why does sperm not get a right to life according to your logic? If you gave it the life-support it needs, it will fertilize and develop into a healthy adult. You can't say, "because it can't grow into a person on its own," since the same is true for non-viable fetuses. You also can't say, "because it is not yet the same genetic footprint as a person," since then I can say "but it will grow to have the same genetic footprint" just like you say to me, "non-viable fetuses may not have brains but they will grow to have brains."

 

[Someone123]

My analogy is that both non-viable fetuses and brain-dead patients have zero brain functioning, and both require life-support to live. So apparently your opinion is that the right to life simply depends on the life expectancy of the patient. Why? And why does a never-been-conscious, non-viable fetus necessarily get to have the rights of a viable fetus? A child does not get the rights of an adult just because it will grow into one.

Why does sperm not get a right to life according to your logic? If you gave it the life-support it needs, it will fertilize and develop into a healthy adult. You can't say, "because it can't grow into a person on its own," since the same is true for non-viable fetuses. You also can't say, "because it is not yet the same genetic footprint as a person," since then I can say "but it will grow to have the same genetic footprint" just like you say to me, "non-viable fetuses may not have brains but they will grow to have brains."

None of your arguments are even remotely logical. I have no interest in continuing to argue your ridiculous points point by point. I have made my position clear and why I believe my position on this issue is much more ethical. Find someone else to argue with.

 

[9BBN]

None of your arguments are even remotely logical. I have no interest in continuing to argue your ridiculous points point by point. I have made my position clear and why I believe my position on this issue is much more ethical. Find someone else to argue with.

Wrong. I have made it quite clear how a non-viable fetus is analogous to a brain-dead adult (both have no functional brain and require life support to continue living). You have the burden of proof to show why the differences between them suffice it to give the right to life exclusively to the former. I have also made it quite clear how a non-viable fetus is analogous to sperm (both will become an adult if given life-support), so you also have the burden of proof to show why only the former has the right to life, when sperm has the same capacity to grow with life-support. The fact that you cannot answer to these 2 questions demonstrates that you cannot answer one without contradicting your reasoning with the other. Or that you are afraid to bite the bullet and declare either sperm or brain-dead adults have the right to life. It doesn't make sense for the right to life to depend on life expectancy. It's arbitrary and also just an estimate.

I'm okay with *agree-to-disagree*, but you seem not okay with *explaining your reasoning*. See how this is different? I was looking forward to agree-to-disagree with respect to the reasoning, not the claims. Your claim that zygotes can possess consciousness is pretty worthless if you can't point to a single reason why you believe that. We could agree-to-disagree there, but I certainly have the right to call you out on your lack of logic here.

Lastly, it's not true that people don't change their minds in debates. It's only speculation, but perhaps that's all *you've* seen in debates because you've never explained your reasoning enough to persuade someone, and you're too close-minded to be persuaded yourself. I also don't think it's true that nobody is open-minded. I think you're projecting your own close-mindedness here. But by the way, I'm not challenging your claims because I think I can change your mind. I'm doing so because I want to know your reasoning, since you haven't provided any.

Here's the only reasoning you have given me, and it's illogical:

This zygote did not create itself

Nothing creates itself, so what are you on about? (i.e. this can't be a reason why a non-viable fetus has the right to life but not a sperm or brain-dead adult, since all of these things do not create themselves)

Also you pretended my analogy is that non-viable fetuses are brain-dead, when my actual analogy is that they have zero brain functioning.

 

[summers]

Interesting read...

Abortion Is a Fundamentally American Act

 

[pinker_strawberries]

This is why the moment I turned 18, I got an IUD </3. My mom hated the idea because I'm putting a foreign object in my uterus but I can't risk SA/R, I'm not mentally stable enough to carry that. I'm gonna lose my shit if states start raising the ages or ban contraceptives..

 

[summers]

This is why the moment I turned 18, I got an IUD </3. My mom hated the idea because I'm putting a foreign object in my uterus but I can't risk SA/R, I'm not mentally stable enough to carry that. I'm gonna lose my shit if states start raising the ages or ban contraceptives..

Could do the nex implant in the arm. Lasts 3 years, and probably way less risk of infection: https://www.nexplanon.com/what-is-nexplanon/

 

[jamie_]

being anti-abortion whilst on a suicide forum seems infinitely funny to me. pick a fucking struggle honestly. concentrate on unexisting yourself [in a video game] than worrying about #defendingtheunborn.

 

[Someone123]

being anti-abortion whilst on a suicide forum seems infinitely funny to me. pick a fucking struggle honestly. concentrate on unexisting yourself [in a video game] than worrying about #defendingtheunborn.

They are unrelated issues, people have opinions in a free country on different sides of all kinds of political issues, it's a fundamental right of a free country.

 

[summers]

being anti-abortion whilst on a suicide forum seems infinitely funny to me. pick a fucking struggle honestly. concentrate on unexisting yourself [in a video game] than worrying about #defendingtheunborn.

So many people on these forums want to kill themselves because terrible shit happened to them, but for some reason think there is redemption for the human race. The only redemption is a global nuclear war or ele category asteroid.

They also think the majority of people are smart enough to make good decisions. They're not. The vast majority or people are fucking idiots. Pro-lifers (both anti-suicide and anti-abortion) are prime examples of this.

 

[jamie_]

They are unrelated issues, people have opinions in a free country on different sides of all kinds of political issues, it's a fundamental right of a free country.

a free country is when you control people's reproductive rights and force them to go through pregnancy and give birth even if they don't want to and have to sacrifice so much of their freedom and life raising a child who might abort themselves 20 years later anyway after chilling on a suicide forum.

 

[Someone123]

a free country is when you control people's reproductive rights and force them to go through pregnancy and give birth even if they don't want to and have to sacrifice so much of their freedom and life raising a child who might abort themselves 20 years later anyway after chilling on a suicide forum.

Not at all. Many women in this situation give their children up for adoption and they go into very caring homes, including the baby Roe from Roe v Wade- and a second baby from the same mother. These women are in their fifties now and they say that their adoptive homes were very caring.

 

[jamie_]

Not at all. Many women in this situation give their children up for adoption and they go into very caring homes, including the baby Roe from Roe v Wade- and a second baby from the same mother. These women are in their fifties now and they say that their adoptive homes were very caring.

many don't. ur also skipping over the whole 9 months of fucking pregnancy

 

[Someone123]

many don't. ur also skipping over the whole 9 months of fucking pregnancy

The child or "living entity" did nothing to create this situation and does not deserve to have live their ended. Which is more important to protect- the life of the child or the mother's ability to stop the pregnancy by killing the child- or the "living entity" of some kind. I believe that the child's life is more important to protect, though in cases of threat to the health of the mother and rape- these are exceptions that I support.

 

[RainAndSadness]

The child or "living entity" did nothing to create this situation and does not deserve to have live their ended. Which is more important to protect- the life of the child or the mother's ability to stop the pregnancy by killing the child- or the "living entity" of some kind. I believe that the child's life is more important to protect, though in cases of threat to the health of the mother and rape- these are exceptions that I support.

The well-being of a sentient human is more important. That's the easiest question to answer. Only a dishonest person would prioritise the fetus over the human and downplay the bodily integrity and individual autonomy of a person. I also strongly disagree with your narrative about children being aborted because that's not what's happening. We're not talking about children in a legal sense, we're talking about a fetus that in most cases of abortions barely developed a brain and a central nervous system. Unlike a fetus, a child is an independant and seperate being that doesn't rely on the placenta of the parent anymore to stay alive. There are fundamental biological and neurological differences between a fetus and a child. And I think you know that. And I think you're doing it on purpose, using language that incites the strongest emotional reactions to score a victory because you're making them argue against a strawman. You've said repeatedly that abortion equates murder.

You don't have to prove consciousness to prove murder- the zygote grows rapidly and is living- if you kill it and it is living this is murder.[...]

Words are imprecise and I am writing this quickly, so you can nitpick on the words, but the fact is that from the moment of conception this is a person- the zygote is the first stage of being a person. If you stop a life you are killing this being, this is murder.

[...]Following is a quote from "thelifeinstitute website", a pro-life website: "The foetal pain question is not central to the abortion debate. Whether the unborn child suffers pain during an abortion or not is secondary to the much bigger reality; the child is being killed. Quietly shooting someone in their sleep makes you no less guilty of murder than if you had stabbed them to death. Providing an unborn child with anesthesia so you can kill them "humanely" makes abortion no less heinous."

And I think that's a bit inconsequental considering you complained earlier that somebody violated the rules regarding 'respectful engagement'. Your language is in no doubt inflammatory because it equates people who aborted a fetus for any reason with literal murder. You're putting them on the same level, legally and morally speaking and I think that's strongly disrespectful and it also lacks a lot of nuance, don't you think?

 

[Life_and_Death]

The child or "living entity" did nothing to create this situation and does not deserve to have live their ended. Which is more important to protect- the life of the child or the mother's ability to stop the pregnancy by killing the child

what if the mother mentally and physically just can not handle the 9mths of pregnancy? not having the ability to handle 9mths, theyre most likely going to join this forum to put it nicely and now theres 2 lives gone.

 

[summers]

Your language is in no doubt inflammatory because it equates people who aborted their fetus for any reason with literal murder.

First, murder is a legal term (as is manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc...). The technical term is homicide - which means you are a killer. I don't get why people get so bent out of shape being called a killer. Soldiers are killers, cops are killers, doctors are killers, executioners are killers. There are many things that are much worse - rapists, pedophiles, arsonists, thieves, politicians (lol).

I have never killed anyone, but if I were a soldier and I did, I wouldn't be upset by that label.

 

[Someone123]

what if the mother mentally and physically just can not handle the 9mths of pregnancy? not having the ability to handle 9mths, theyre most likely going to join this forum to put it nicely and now theres 2 lives gone.

I am not interested in debating this subject any more, I have said that I support exceptions that include this situation.

 

[RainAndSadness]

First, murder is a legal term (as is manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc...). The technical term is homicide - which means you are a killer. I don't get why people get so bent out of shape being called a killer. Soldiers are killers, cops are killers, doctors are killers, executioners are killers. There are many things that are much worse - rapists, pedophiles, arsonists, thieves, politicians (lol).

I have never killed anyone, but if I were a soldier and I did, I wouldn't be upset by that label.

It's a legal term and it describes the unlawful killing of another human without any justification or valid excuse. That's not what happens in the case of abortion. Every abortion has a very strong case because you're forced to have a fetus inside your body for 9 months and I know that's a mentally and physically exhausting procedure and that alone should be more than enough justification for an abortion. I think every person with some sense of empathy can understand that. I'm a trans woman and unable to get pregnant but I understand why any person would say "no, I can't and I don't want to take this responsibility, it's exhausting, it's stressful and I'm not ready for this".

If I had an abortion and somebody would imply that I'm a murderer, I would probably be very offended. And that's why I called out that rhetoric. We can have a conversation about abortion without resorting to emotionally charged language because that's exactly what the pro-lifers in the context of suicide are doing to us. It's 100% the same strategy. Just look at a random article about this forum. How many times have we been accused of murdering someone? If you want to be taken seriously, don't act like these people.

 

[Someone123]

our language is in no doubt inflammatory because it equates people who aborted their fetus for any reason with literal murder. You're putting them on the same level, legally and morally speaking and I think that's strongly disrespectful and it also lacks a lot of nuance, don't you think?

This is the debate, this is the language that is commonly used in the debate, disagreeing is not disrespect, when people were swearing at others and are making implied threats of violence against others because theydisagree that was disrespectful to say the least. Some people consider this to be a baby from the moment of conception so this conclusion follows from that, but I don't want to debate this any more, it's not worth it, I have other concerns in my life. This is no way violated site rules, it was just expressing a common opinion on a divisive topic. Som people disagree on various political topics, but I have more immediate concerns in my life and I'm just going to avoid political topics from now on is the plan.

 

[LastFlowers]

I can kind of understand it too, since fetuses are incapable of consenting to anything that happens to them, unlike a fully grown adult who is able to consent to physician-assisted suicide. It would be nice if we lived in a world where abortions were unnecessary and our right to a dignified, and peaceful death could be respected at the same time, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Personally, I feel like secular-minded people who are pro-life in regards to abortion have a much better case, since their desire to protect the unborn is based on humanistic ideas, rather than "cuz the sky dictator said so". It just sucks that they're vastly outnumbered by people who use the Bible to justify their position, even though the Bible fails to actually provide them with such a justification, since the Old Testament is plastered with instances of children, infants, and pregnant women being slaughtered with swords because the ancient Israelites were commanded to steal land from their neighbors by their leaders.

If the desire to protect life was motivated by empathy and compassion, then maybe we would see more pro-life people practicing what they preach by trying to come up with solutions that protect the unborn without violating women's bodily autonomy, such as building artificial wombs to transplant fetuses into during early stages of development. With technology like that readily available, we could Kyle XY this shit and abortions would become obsolete, removing any need for further debate.

Artificial wombs won't remove the need for debate, and abortions would still be sought out.
It's a much more complex issue than meets the eye.
Even if such medical technology or the like existed, you would then have to deal with the issue of obtaining the woman's consent to have herself cut open and have the fetus removed from her body and placed into the artificial chamber. It would perhaps prove to be an even more traumatic procedure than abortion.

Also, there are situations where the woman has no desire to see their fetus come to fruition, despite the lack of the usual grievances, because it would be intensely psychologically damaging.
For instance, there are women who have been raped who, under no circumstances, would be able to survive knowing that the physical embodiment/result of their assault lives on as a constant reminder (with progeny) for centuries to come, essentially providing their rapist with a living souvenir to display their continued power over their victim.
At the end of the day, it may come down to putting one life above another, or weighing one actualized person's quality of life against the underdeveloped existence and mere potential personhood of a fetus.
I don't see any near-future where women become so separate from their ability to bear children that it no longer necessitates the right to abortion.

However, you're still correct in much of your comment, like where you remarked on the desire to protect life not often being motivated by genuine empathy or compassion.

The topic goes beyond the woman's autonomy and stretches into societal issues and the ability or willingness of others to care for and appropriately rear all of these unwanted and possibly artificially nurtured babies (if the false womb was to be utilized).

Once the egg is fertilized and this "living entity" is growing I do not think this should be stopped from living and growing. I don't care about the details you have listed- this is my position on what I think is most ethical, that stopping this living being from living is ethically a very bad decision, because if allowed to continue to grow this baby or fetus or "living entity" could live a full, happy, long life. This"living entity" did not create itself, but now that it is living it should be allowed to continue to live is my opinion, since it did nothing to deserve to killed for. The details of your examples are not relevant to me at all, that are not relevant to my point of view on this topic at all. Millions of people are pro-life, and millions of people are pro-choice, and it will always be this way. I am not going to keep going around and around on this subject, I am allowed to have my own opinion. None of your examples are in any way relevant to my position on this subject.

Your view is very shallow and misses both the bigger picture and the smaller details of the sort of predicament where abortion needs to be an option.
You're allowed to have your opinion?
Sure. It doesn't mean it's based on sound morals or ethics any more so than the other side you allude to failing at the same.
It's easy for other examples and points to remain irrelevant to your position when your position is burying your head in the sand.

If allowed to continue growing it could live a "full, happy, long life"…and what do you suppose the other possibilities consist of?
Are you clairvoyant?
Do you even realize where you are and who you are surrounded by?
People who have suffered to the point where they deem their life not worth living, plenty preferring to have never been born in the first place.
And that's not even touching the surface as to the reasons why your stance is so problematic and harmful.

 

[Hookah-smoking-cat]

Maybe people shouldn't be so irresponsible & make a baby you don't want. Or is inconvenient for your selfish as. It's always "woman's body" "woman's choice". What about the innocent baby that's gonna get sucked outta you with a small vacuum? Piece by piece? Don't wanna get pregnant deep your damn legs closed

 

[summers]

Maybe people shouldn't be so irresponsible & make a baby you don't want. Or is inconvenient for your selfish as. It's always "woman's body" "woman's choice". What about the innocent baby that's gonna get sucked outta you with a small vacuum? Piece by piece? Don't wanna get pregnant deep your damn legs closed

This the first and last of your misogynistic bullshit I will ever have to read. As a parting gift, here's a community that would better suit you: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/

 

[Hookah-smoking-cat]

This the first and last of your misogynistic bullshit I will ever have to read. As a parting gift, here's a community that would better suit you: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/

Bummer. Everyone should be able to believe in what they believe to be right or fair. I'm not "unsure " of what to believe. At least I have beliefs I stand by. Isn't it immature, hypocritical & ignorant to use name call because you don't like what I said?

 

[wait.what]

Everyone should be able to believe in what they believe to be right or fair.

Sure, but you're being as inflammatory as you possibly can, and that is not a "belief." Quit peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining.