Roe v. Wade — Page 3

carnzee said: "Not sure if I understand you, but Roe was never made law by Congress i.e. "codified." The supreme court ruled that it was constitutional. The supreme Court reversed itself on Roe, it didn't strike down a law made by Congress. Indeed, there were never enough pro choice democrats to pass a law saying abortion is legal and no one was calling for that since they assumed Roe was safe. (Apologies if I misunderstand you)."

What I'm saying is that whether a law was on the books or not on the books ahead of this ruling, Abortion would not be a federal right anymore because the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional. I'm more referring to people who are crowing now that it SHOULD have been codified and it's Congress's fault for not passing a law protecting Abortion at any point post the initial Roe ruling in 1974 that Abortion is no longer a federally protected right.



Pauly3 said: "I'm not following your argument supporting your belief that what I said was dishonest. Perhaps you can clarify? In your "stupid" example, in what way would even the nuttiest pro-lifer address those "lives"? Abortions involve knowledge of the pregnancy and choice. Your example involves neither. Your example does not demonstrate any dishonesty on my part. Perhaps you can re-read what I said and then restate specifically what you believe to be dishonest?"

Because it goes to the heart of the issue. Are fertilized eggs a person? That is the "Christian" belief. There are millions of fertilized eggs (in your view those are people) that are washed away. So do you care about the loss of life or do you just care that a pregnant person made that choice herself to get rid of it? Are you willing to criminalize miscarriages when it comes to people with addiction? Who made general poor choices during their pregnancy that led to a miscarriage? What about if they were driving a car and they caused a crash that led to their own miscarriage? Don't act like I'm being facetious with my examples because they are very real and they are about to be a lot more real.

And it's also incredibly disgusting to try and bring up slavery in a discussion about people not having bodily autonomy to make their own decisions and self determination in life. That is what slavery is.

TheatreFan4 said: "

Pauly3 said: "I'm not following your argument supporting your belief that what I said was dishonest. Perhaps you can clarify? In your "stupid" example, in what way would even the nuttiest pro-lifer address those "lives"? Abortions involve knowledge of the pregnancy and choice. Your example involves neither. Your example does not demonstrate any dishonesty on my part.Perhaps you can re-read what I said and then restate specifically what you believe to be dishonest?"

Because it goes to the heart of the issue. Are fertilized eggs a person? That is the "Christian" belief. There are millions of fertilized eggs (in your view those are people) that are washed away. So do you care about the loss of life or do you just care that a pregnant person made that choice herself to get rid of it? Are you willing to criminalize miscarriages when it comes to people with addiction? Who made general poor choices during their pregnancy that led to a miscarriage? What about if they were driving a car and they caused a crash that led to their own miscarriage? Don't act like I'm being facetious with my examples because they are very real and they are about to be a lot more real.

And it's also incredibly disgusting to try and bring up slavery in a discussion about people not having bodily autonomy to make their own decisions and self determination in life. That is what slavery is."



Life begins when the egg is fertilized. The process that takes place where the zygote changes from a single cell to dividing into multiple cells defines the zygote as a living thing. I believe this is a brief simplistic scientific explanation. Religion need not be considered. In the case of a human life, I believe purposely and deliberately ending that life is wrong. I believe that life has a right to grow unimpeded and be born and go on to self-determine for itself a life story. Again, religion need not be considered.

The washing away of lives you suggest is not purposeful or deliberate. A drug addict that has a miscarriage due to failing to care for herself also does not deliberately cause the miscarriage, nor does a pregnant woman who causes a car crash deliberately cause a miscarriage. No, I am not willing to criminalize these things.

The comparison to slavery is apt. You are ignoring the parallel and instead painting me as disgusting based on something other than the parallel I compared. People once had the right to own other people as property and do with them as they saw fit. It was normal and accepted. Over time, people came to understand how wrong that was, and no sane person believes it still to be OK. We look back and see those who thought owning slaves was normal as evil. Today, abortion is normal and accepted. Over time, as people understand and evolve, I believe people will place much greater value on the unborn and someday the overwhelming majority of people will come to see abortion as evil. I may well be wrong. No one has offered a reasonable explanation as to why I may be wrong. Mischaracterizing my argument, for the specific purpose of making me look disgusting, surely won't provide a reasonable explanation as to why I might be wrong.

TheatreFan4 said: "Then what needs to happen is we need to overhaul all of society to reflect this because none of our laws do. You can't claim a child as a dependent if they're in utero. You can't start collecting child support while pregnant. This goes on and on. Don't sit here and tell me this is not a religious thing and pure science. No credible scientist or health care provider would agree with you."

I am not explaining other people's "thing". I am explaining my own, and religion need not be a factor.



"What? It's negligent manslaughter! Women have already been charged with it!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544"

Again, I explained my belief, which you seem to agree with. There was no need to provide this story.


"Let's go back. You're just not being consistent. You are painting every life as precious born and unborn alike and deserves to be born. But you do not even shake your head at millions of fertilized eggs flushed down the toilet every single month. So your issue is with pregnant people having a CHOICE of whether to go through with the pregnancy. You are in favor of conscripting pregnant people to slavery for 9 months so you can ensure the fetus in them comes to term, but also what you said above is that you're not interested in criminalizing neglectful miscarriages so... you would be okay with the pregnant person not taking any steps in protecting this "unborn life". You would be okay with them continuing their life, going out partying, regularly drunk as ****, and possibly maybe even accidently fall on their stomach while pregnant and induce a miscarriage."

You are mischaracterizing my beliefs and making nonsensical conclusions about my beliefs. There is a monumental difference between a pregnancy the mother is aware of where the unborn baby has every reasonable expectation will live and a fertilized egg the mother is completely unaware of that has no chance of living under any circumstance. You are assigning beliefs to me that I don't have.


"You understand how everything you have told me and others in the thread makes... no ****ing sense?"

As you understood you had trouble understanding me, perhaps asking for clarification would have been appropriate. Assigning beliefs to me that you can't possibly know and that benefits your argument was the more appropriate option? Grow up.


"Like... when the technology is there to explant a fertilized egg into an incubator for 9 months and not have that person bare the burden of your weird ****ing fetish we can hear you out. Until then? F*CK off you (and I'm doubling down now) disgusting person. Sincerely.
Support for abortion rights is going up, not down. The one who is not evolving is you. You're honestly worse than someone some doesn't support abortion for religious purposes. At least they stand for something, you stand for nothing but your sick twisted personal ideology."

I make room for being wrong (do you recognize reasonableness?). I do not have all the answers. I acknowledge the validity of an opposing argument. I have an opinion. None of this is twisted or evil. I have attempted to express my opinion without the ugliness you have brought into it. I have not attacked you for your opinion. Grow up.

You are right, it is clear who should grow up.

You don't understand my beliefs well enough to conclude they are dumb. You assign false aspects to my arguments, such as just now when you said I compared abortion rights to views on slavery (a mistake you previously made and have also previously been corrected on). I compared widespread views on slavery to widespread views on abortion and drew a parallel to how I think widespread views on abortion will change in a very similar fashion to how they changed regarding slavery.


The problem with you and those like you is that you think you've grown enough, learned enough and lived enough to know enough. Those who thought owning slaves was perfectly OK were not so different.

You're assigning attributes to me I don't have. Again. At best, you're attempting to make a complex and nuanced subject simple - and removing nuance provides you with what you perceive to be clever digs toward me.

You're wrong regarding "every advancement in scientific technologies" tells us a fetus cannot feel pain. Would you like to qualify that remark with a specified number of weeks? Or trimesters? Or nah?

In the future, technologies that advance our understanding of the fetal development cycle, and the development of technologies such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality that will allow much greater understanding by everyone will lead people to change their thinking regarding aborting developing fetuses. Coming to better understand what you're killing will allow decent people to value the lives of healthy developing fetuses more than they do now. I think it's greatly possible at a minimum.

Assigning personhood doesn't have to be religious. Science does a plenty good job by itself. And I never said religion has nothing to do with it. You continue to miss-state what I believe. Is that on purpose, or are you just not as developed as you think?

People who owned slaves had a similar sentiment toward those who disagreed with them.

Nobody owes anybody the use of their body for nine months.

By the way, TF4, you're probably right about codification. I do think it would at least keep abortion away from the supreme court for a while longer, buying some time to expand the court and maybe changing public perception a little. All I was really trying to say was that there are many angles to look at this from, and that blaming Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't make much sense to me.

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Nobody owes anybody the use of their body for nine months.


Which for those playing at home is what? SLAVERY!


By the way, TF4, you're probably right about codification. I do think it would at least keep abortion away from the supreme court for a while longer, buying some time to expand the court and maybe changing public perception a little. All I was really trying to say was that there are many angles to look at this from, and that blaming Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't make much sense to me."

In this specific case does blaming RBG do any good? Not particularly because it would have just made the vote 5 to 4. It's the cases where that last vote is going to make the difference. Like any votes on Gay marriage is at this point likely going to be a 5/4 decision there's not much margin for error. I do potentially see these votes for codifying Gay Marriage, Birth Control, etc. coming back to bite us in the ass. It's not going to actually do anything for the current legality of any of them because the court already supercedes them. What it does do... is give Opponents a direct B Line to the SCOTUS to have them overturned and ACTUALLY do damage. You're handing them a law to take to Court.

Pauly3 Said: "The light shining a little too bright?"

What a dip**** you are.

Pauly3 said: "Something a slave owner might have said to a guy that valued the life of the slave and asked the slave owner to consider freeing the slave. The guy might have suggested in the future people will value all life more than they do in the present - and considering that possibility is not dumb. The slave owner probably told the guy, "FU"."

You literally think pregnant people should be a slave to pregnancy. I don't give a **** what you think. Your musings have no basis in ethics despite what you proport to believe. I know nobody wants to f*ck you, Pauly, but you shouldn't take it out on people like that.

Pauly3 said: "Your willingness to share your similarities to slave owners is stunning."

Explain to me why you are okay with conscripting a pregnant person to Slavery for 9 months based on your "gut feeling"? And why you don't care about cases of negligent miscarriages? For someone who said there's a lot of nuance to this debate you've offered exactly none.

Pauly3 said: "Highland Guy said: "Pauly3 said: "People who owned slaves had a similar sentiment toward those who disagreed with them."

ENOUGH OF THAT

"

The light shining a little too bright?"



BALDERDASH.

Updated On: 7/21/22 at 10:15 AM

TheatreFan4 said: "carnzee said: "Not sure if I understand you, but Roe was never made law by Congress i.e. "codified." The supreme court ruled that it was constitutional. The supreme Court reversed itself on Roe, it didn't strike down a law made by Congress. Indeed, there were never enough pro choice democrats to pass a law saying abortion is legal and no one was calling for that since they assumed Roe was safe. (Apologies if I misunderstand you)."

What I'm saying is that whether a law was on the books or not on the books ahead of this ruling, Abortion would not be a federal right anymore because the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional.



I've been trying to do some research into this. Everything involving the law is complicated of course. From what I gather, Congress has the right to pass a law enshrining abortion protections (even after the court struck down Roe) because Congress has a right to regulate commerce. So, had Congress passed a law enshrining abortion, abortion would still be protected even after Roe was struck down. (As we've already discussed, there weren't enough pro choice Democrats to do this in the past. But it's much more likely to pass now if we had filibuster reform so that we'd only need 50 senators to support it.) That's my understanding anyway.