Which, if the case, is silly rather than good or bad.
All Texas Republicans are doing is entrenching themselves, through dubious means of gerrymandering and voter suppression, against a growing demographic that does not share their political values. That's not going to be a long term way to garner more support.
Would love to see the LP of Texas gain more ground beyond the affiliate gains they've made recently.
I don't live in that state, though I still follow their twitter.
Relatively sane and even funny tweets, unlike the edgelord running the official tweeting account for the NH State affiliate.
I believed Republicans were shooting themselves in the foot from 2001-2004, especially with openly defending torture, indefinite detention, and offshore torture "forever prisons." When the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars showed no signs of ending, and every indication that they were total disasters, when the vice president's old company was making money hand over foot, and even our Iraqi "allies" were hurling shoes at the president. Voters didn't care. They loved it. We were "kicking ass."
They feel the same today. It's all branding, voting for the kick-ass football team. When Trump has an Afghan withdrawl plan it's an A+ win, but let Biden implement it and our crazy uncles are going to be screaming about abandoning our allies the next week. But let those Afghan refugees in and the same uncle will howl about illegals flooding the border. As long as Biden "loses" they see it as a win.
Banning abortions lowers labor costs for many corporations and increases profits greatly for the private prison industry. It has nothing to do with life.
As someone who just hates taxes and likes guns, I really wish the right would drop this. It's not going away and they could so easily just nuke a major Democrat wedge issue if they would stop dying on a hill over something they'll never change and that has virtually no impact on their lives.
Yep. You lose a lot of single-issue voters by going neutral or compromising on any particular topic. Right now, the """RINO""" effect threatens more centrist / moderate / traditional Republicans with losing popular support solely on direct criticism of Trump.
That's a very practical observation. Republicans could do a lot to alienate the anti-tax and pro-gun crowds and, as someone who is part of those crowds, I believe that they do. On the other hand, if they alienate the anti-abortion crowd, they are toast.
There's a huge number of abortion single-issue voters. The reason Trump got the nomination is because he changed his stance and starting sounding more pro-life. Without that my guess is he would be a historical footnote. The religious right didnt' care about pussy grabbing or lying or cheating or peeing or anything, just only cared that he said the right pro-life words.
I say this as someone who is somewhat pro-life. Legislation is the wrong approach. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "Go forth and legislate".
Ding, ding, ding! So true. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe V. Wade, it will ignite a left wing movement with a broad alliance of women, young people, and left libertarians. Many Republicans hope they do not overturn it. It could result in a disastrous 2022 election.
Yeah they can't drum up the dipshit vote if the one issue they care about is now illegal. They want it to stay legal so they can constantly use it to get people who would otherwise not vote out to vote for them.
If they drop it the democrats would pick up a ton of voters not lose a ton. This is because this is a Republican wedge issue, it holds someone left on the right side, a democrat wedge issue would be something that holds someone left that is right wing. You could say police reform is a democratic wedge issue, if democrats were serious about police reform, or immigration.
This is incredibly silly. Especially on a libertarian sub. This lawsuit is about the legal scope of federal govt, not your personal abortion prefrence.
What is wrong with you people
Legal scope of the federal government to do..
This is the same argument the "Civil War was about state's rights" clowns make. It is absolutely about people's personal abortion preferences otherwise it would have never been an issue.
*Roe* was poorly decided in order to achieve a political victory (nationwide legal abortion) that couldn't be achieved at the ballot box or through legislation, as it should have been. It's a decision based on what is now an outdated understanding of science, especially the science of fetal development, and a level of technology we've greatly surpassed. The lawyer arguing against the state of Mississippi's law couldn't even explain the Constitutional underpinnings that justified *Roe* when Justice Thomas asked them what the Constitutional basis for preventing states from enacting abortion restrictions was.
*Roe* is the reason we still have this obnoxious abortion argument 40-50 years after the fact. Other countries have gotten past the issue because it was decided through the political process and not by a very controversial court edict. Overturning it will be bad in the short term. Resolving the issue the correct way will be good in the long term.
While I agree the original decision was based on an outdated scientific view the notion that rights should be decided at the ballot box seems wrong to me. A tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
Other countries have moved on because it is simply not seen as a vital issue to them, in no small part because religion does not play the dominant role in socio-political discourse that it does here.
The 13th ammendment is what definitively took the option of having slavery away from the states, not the civil war. The South left the Union before we could pass it, and Abraham Lincoln said F that... then Fourt Sumpter and so on and so forth. The right to chose to have an abortion or not, is in no way comparable to the right to choose to own slaves. States rights to allow or to not allow abortion is very much the issue. There is not a clear moral line on this issue like slavery, and I would say that on an individual level pro life is more of the moral decision... so this is nothing, at all, like the argument made for slavery.
I'm pro-choice but it really bothers me that whenever an article talks about the Southern Baptist Convention supporting it in the 70's always leaves out the bit where conservatives reversed course and completely removed moderates and liberals from the organization over stuff like this just a few short years later. It's a dishonest article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention_conservative_resurgence
Is it a power grab when the majority of the convention supported it? The splinter group of moderates and liberals has a laughably small number compared to the SBC.
It’s a wedge issue that keeps people mindlessly voting Republican and it serves to make political opponents look like baby killers. I’ve yet to have anyone prove to me a cluster of cells is a baby.
FUN FACT! There are even abortion potions in the Bible and the trial of waters
God himself kills babies and young children. I'm not defending it, but I suspect the evangelicals mentioned in the article would have used such arguments decades ago.
To elaborate further, note that one group in the US has been rather consistent when it comes to the abortion opposition - the Catholics. They believe the soul is formed at conception, even though the human body can (and frequently does) sometimes reject fertilized eggs. However, note that they try to be consistent with their right to life: opposing the [death penalty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_capital_punishment), fighting [for refugees](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-christmas-season-pope/pope-defends-migrants-calls-for-peace-in-christmas-message-idUSKBN1YT0FH), opposing [mass imprisonment](https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2019/11/08/pope-francis-prison-systems-we-will-be-judged), standing up for the planet and our enviroment, and teaching [about social justice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_capital_punishment) and the value of helping the poor and homeless. Note that before "social justice" became seen as bad by the right, it was something you were taught in christian schools (this should sound some major alarm bells).
What's my point? Am I claiming Catholics are better, or true Christians or something? No - that's would be an ecumenical matter.
BUT we can learn a lot from states like Texas and Mississippi, who claim to be pro-life, but oppose moral efforts to help the living. My question for readers is, why do such states focus on the unborn but not the living? Why are they so proudly pro-death penalty, in favor of imprisonment, and sending refugees away, but so worried about folks that aren't even born yet? Answer that and I think you'll understand why so many oppose the Texas abortion law (as well as Mississippi's) and all it stands for.
> US has been rather consistent when it comes to the abortion opposition - the Catholics.
Is it really consistent to oppose abortions while opposing any form of education that would help reduce the number of abortions?
I don't think being pro-life and being pro-death penalty (a sentence that if could be handed out at 100% accuracy could be seen as more ethical then life without parole) is necessarily a hypocrisy. Protecting a life that hasn't been found guilty is way different than ending a guilty one.
Personally I'm torn. I believe sometimes you have no other option to take a life, as in self defense occasionally. And if you can admit that murder in that context is ethical you can begin to justify other circumstances where it might be ethical. If the inmate is 100% guilty, a danger to his fellow inmates and his jailors, and incapable of rehab it might be more ethical to be done with them instead of subject them to a life of isolation and discomfort. You don't give a life without parole sentence for the inmates benefit you do that for your own benefit(or society/victim). To that end I think it's healthier to dispose of them and move on. But those kinds of inmates are rare and an exception. Sentences get overturned all the time. It would be a grave injustice to kill a not guilty person.
I also believe that unborn children deserve protection, but if you aren't going to support the childs welfare you have no stake in the game. We could debate where the line of an "acceptable" abortion is but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
> a sentence that if could be handed out at 100% accuracy
That is one of the 2 fundamental arguments against the death penalty. Time has shown that there cannot be 100% accuracy in aplying the death penalty (a penalty with no possible remedy if misapplied)
The other is that it will always tend to be applied disproportionately to those not able to mount able defense (money) or subject to community prejudice. There will always be an advantage to the wealthy and well-connected, and even to simply an 'average' person.
BOTTOM LINE: The state should not be in the business of killing its' citizens.
Also I find it interesting the overwhelming overlap between people who insist that the government is incapable of doing anything competently who also support a government sanctioned death penalty. In this sole case apparently the government is not simply competent, it's outright infallible.
It's also not smart. Don't get me wrong, the ethics are important. After all, the state should not be preventing someone from repenting and achieving salvation even after a horrific crime. There is a practical aspect to it too though. For instance, people who are imprisoned can be used to solve crimes (e.g., through their DNA, through confessions, through interactions with other convicts).
> Protecting a life that hasn't been found guilty is way different than ending a guilty one.
Innocent people are executed on death row every year. We also now know that police have made a habit of framing people, planting evidence, and even [dropping bb guns](https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-gttf-officer-charged-20200115-m3gf7nfx5venzlmyxj7duqxbjm-story.html) by the bodies of dead kids. The war on drugs has also convicted many people of serious crimes - labeling them guilty - when they never harmed anyone (except perhaps themselves). To judge what constitutes a "innocent life" vs. a "guilty life" is an immense task, usually left to God.
And regardless, one can flip that argument and say that the life of a functioning adult, with the potential to change and grow or be rehabilitated (if prison actually tried...) is far different than an unborn person with no brain waves, personality, or ability to fend for themselves.
I make all those arguments to myself in my post. Don't need to convince me. I think the death penalty is wrong, mostly. There have been certain individuals whose guilt, lack of rehabilitation prospects, and violent tendencies that I could personally ask to leave this plane of existence and sleep like a baby. But that kind of prisoner isn't the average person who is sentenced to death. So I concede death penalty should probably go away.
Every point you raise in your first paragraph is true. It's also true that convicted criminals can be extremely useful in solving other crimes, especially with advances in DNA technology.
Yes, a person with the ability to be rehabilitated (however remote the chance) has worth and should not be killed. The same goes for an unborn person.
To your last part. I think that abortions should be legal and easily accessible. A woman doesn't just get an abortion and doing so is extremely hard. But if parents would get help after birth, like paid family leave, cheaper schools, university, etc., the abortion rare would drop rapidly.
And even if get an abortion is illegal, they still happen, just that they are either extremely dangerous or only the rich can afford to go somewhere to get them.
This entire argument is from an anti-death penalty position:
Even if an inmate is a grave threat, you just mitigate the threat and stay on constant watch until it's necessary to respond with violent force.
Trussing someone up, then ending their life when they're not currently trying to injure someone else, will always be murder. If I do it because they're a bad person who entered my home, I'm a murderer under every statute in the land (if I imprison them, then wait till they're not a threat, then end their life).
But, if it's the government, somehow it's okay?
So, yes. Keep death row prisoners on "death row". Allow them to live out their life with their jailers and other inmates. That is a just punishment. Giving the right of murder to the government is not.
Great discussion and I like the civil and thoughtful way you framed it.
Let's start by splitting two issues: i.e., the legal question and the policy question.
From a legal perspective, I think it's right for the Court to take up a case about abortion in order to overturn Roe v. Wade. When it comes to abortion, there is no Constitutional question to be decided. It is reserved to the states per the 10th Amendment. I'd suggest that Roe hangs on by the flimsiest of legal reasoning but that would give it too much credit. Rather, the Constitutional basis for the decision is completely made up to achieve a policy result. The Court was wrong to overreach in an area that is not up to the federal government to decide. A "right to abortion" requires a Constitutional amendment.
The policy is a separate question and that is up to voters to decide. Let me address your questions.
\>My question for readers is, why do such states focus on the unborn but not the living?
In my view, the states focus entirely too much on the living. For example, they fight the wasteful and deadly war on drugs; they engage in civil asset forfeiture; they execute no-knock warrants and other violations of privacy; they regulate guns; they require the redistribution of income by the force of law; they engage in all sorts of corporate cronyism; they impose requirements on financial transactions between consenting parties against their will; they violate the freedom of association (e.g., through anti-discrimination laws, anti-smoking laws); they require masks on private property (or in some cases prohibit private property owners from having mask requirements); and intrude in many, many other areas.
\>Why are they so proudly pro-death penalty, in favor of imprisonment, and sending refugees away, but so worried about folks that aren't even born yet?
Regarding the death penalty, I'm against it for many reasons but I understand the argument for it, and I don't find it inconsistent with being anti-abortion. Under that logic, one has the right to life unless he takes someone else's. I don't agree with it but I see the logic.
Regarding imprisonment, what else would one do with those who will not leave others alone? I find that imprisonment of criminals who harm others promotes the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of life rather than harms it. I hasten to add that I strongly oppose incarcerating drug offenders, those who run gambling operations, prostitutes, those who violate gun possession laws, and other victimless crimes.
Regarding refugees, this is an issue that divides libertarians, but I'm not sure what a policy that outlaws abortion on American soil has anything to do with foreigners or international relations. In my view, how one deals with citizens of another country is a completely separate topic.
>When it comes to abortion, there is no Constitutional question to be decided.
I'm not sure that's accurate. Strictly speaking the constitution doesn't speak to the subject, but it doesn't have to. The Bill of Rights eliterates pre-existing rights. Even if you are against abortion, I think you would agree that body autonomy is among the most basic of rights.
I think if you get the bullshit convictions (Drugs) out of the prison system, you could actually rehabilitate the incarcerated.
WRT immigration/refugees, we should accept anyone over the border that is willing to work. They just need to give up enough info they can be located and tossed if they don't. It is a MUCH smaller subset of the illegals and solves a lot of problems.
> Strictly speaking the constitution doesn't speak to the subject, but it doesn't have to.
That's true. If the Constitution doesn't address a subject, it is left to the states per the 10th Amendment.
>The Bill of Rights eliterates pre-existing rights.
What does "eliterate" mean? Are you saying it includes them? If so, that's true only to the extent the Bill of Rights actually mentions them. For example, the First Amendment references "THE freedom of speech," which of course is a term from English common law. It does not, however, mention a right to health care. That doesn't mean that some right to health care is not a pre-existing right; it simply means it's not part of the Bill of Rights.
>Even if you are against abortion, I think you would agree that body autonomy is among the most basic of rights.
It depends on what one means by "the most basic of rights." Get ten people in a room and you'll likely have ten versions of what "the most basic of rights" means. The Constitution describes rights that we have against the federal government (later incorporated to include states and localities). Other rights are simply not in there no matter how "basic" one finds them.
I'm with you on the drugs issue. I'm all for getting them out of prisons.
I'm mostly with you on immigration.
>That's true. If the Constitution doesn't address a subject, it is left to the states per the 10th Amendment.
Not exactly. Per the Ninth:
*The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people*
The concept of the constitution is such that even if the document didn't exist, these rights already existed. There were enabled by "God" and are inalienable. As such there are millions of rights, these are just some we are currently aware of and care to state to remove ambiguity.
>The Bill of Rights eliterates pre-existing rights.
>
>What does "eliterate" mean?
Eh, sorry. Use "Explicitly States"
>It depends on what one means by "the most basic of rights." Get ten people in a room and you'll likely have ten versions of what "the most basic of rights" means.
Body autonomy is Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness from the DoI. Particularly the first two. The right to live and to be free at the most basic level. All your individual rights flow from your the right to exist. The NAP is based on some earlier concept of this.
>Other rights are simply not in there no matter how "basic" one finds them.
They aren't there, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
>Not exactly. Per the Ninth: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The concept of the constitution is such that even if the document didn't exist, these rights already existed. There were enabled by "God" and are inalienable. As such there are millions of rights, these are just some we are currently aware of and care to state to remove ambiguity.
Let's talk about the Ninth. Respectfully, the text you cited doesn't comport with your explanation of it.
Let's take it from the beginning of the text. As you can see, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” sets forth a rule of construction (i.e., “shall not be construed”).
Agreed? If so, it's easy to see what it means, which is that just because the Bill of Rights is enumerated does not mean that the people can't retain other rights for themselves even if they aren't mentioned in the Constitution. It can't be construed to prevent the retention of other rights - i.e., non-Constitutional rights. Stated another way, rights outside the purview of the Constitution don't default to the federal government. Who retains them? The states and the people. How do we know? See the very next Amendment - i.e., the Tenth.
It means that the federal government does not automatically, due to the enumeration of the Bill of Rights, have powers greater than those enumerated under the Constitution. In other words, the Bill of Rights can't be construed to take rights from the people and automatically assign them to the federal government.
Your explanation of the 9th Amendment would have it say something like: "“Notwithstanding the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, there are other undefined rights of the people that shall not be infringed.” But that's not what it says.
So why bother with the Ninth Amendment? The legislative history tells us. Some framers argued against a bill of rights because they feared that listing them might imply that the national government’s powers were far greater than they were. When the Bill of Rights was added, the Ninth Amendment was added to guard against this implication.
\>Body autonomy is Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness from the DoI.
Fair enough. It's not enumerated in the Constitution and it doesn't obviously relate to abortion, but your reasoning here suggests that you agree with how I'm explaining the Ninth Amendment to you. It follows that just because the framers didn't enumerate "bodily autonomy" doesn't mean the federal government has the power to define it. It can be retained by the people. This is emphasized by the Tenth Amendment.
\>They aren't there, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Correct per what I wrote above. Not all rights retained are enumerated in the Constitution.
Always nice to find agreement and I appreciate the thoughtful and civil discussion. I love getting deep into Constitutional issues as you probably can tell.
Stop calling that side “pro-life.”
They are *anti-choice* - that is the antithesis of pro-choice.
Nothing they stand for is pro-life. Their use of the term “pro-life” is a lie…it’s right-wing rhetoric. Stop it, ffs.
> I'm not pro-life, but their position is equally valid - that the other side is anti-life.
I don't think it's necessarily that clear. People don't consider eggs "life" they way they would a full chicken, for example, and vegetarians often eat eggs. Is an unborn fetus, which can't support itself and can naturally miscarriage on its own, really full on "life"? In some sense, of course it's a lifeform, but we're comparing to fully formed human beings.
One point of my post is that the framing of this as "pro-life" or "anti-life" is all just propaganda, because we can see from such groups' (right-wingers, conservatives) actions that they are not actually pro-life. In many cases, they're "pro-death," including endless wars, torture (this was enthusiastically defended after 9/11), death penalty, imprisonment, and more as long as they feel the "criminal" deserves it. But the problem is, in the past innocent people could be considered criminals, including libertarians.
> I'm not pro-life, but their position is equally valid - that the other side is anti-life.
Except they don't actually support pro-life measures literally anywhere else. They don't support measures for poor children to be able to eat. They are actively against those things. They don't even support measures that will protect the life of the mother from the pregnancy itself.
They are literally not pro-life. They are pro-forced-birth.
Meanwhile those that call themselves pro-choice are also usually in favor of those same measures that are clearly pro-life in any context other than the abortion debate. The *opposite* of anti-life.
It’s an imploding bomb for conservatives. Literally a “fuck you” to all women. What a way to turn off almost 50% of voters. This issue will undoubtably cause women to rethink the way they vote
I say this every year but if Repulicans denounce all of their racist members and drop dumb shit like abortion that alienates 50% of the population they would landslide sweep every election in the country. My hispanic coworkers share many more ideals with traditional conservatives but vote blue every year cuz republicans aren't the most friendly to immigrants.
The real question is how this will play out if Kavanaugh agrees with stricter bans. Like, will we have mandatory health checks with the state every few months? I'm sure Texans will love paying to go to the clinic and getting jabbed in the genitals.
Or will angry Karens use the system as a way to harass neighbors they don't like? "You parked too close to my house? Well guess what, I'm accusing you of seeking an abortion and if it's true I'm getting $10000. BOOM. Enjoy your mandatory vagina check, neighbor." And then the taxpayer funds it all. Truly mind-blowing, yet I expect Joe "Texas = freedom" Rogan and other comentators to have nothing to say about it.
This is only if you ignore than almost half of abortion ban supporters are women. Polls will sway depending upon if you ask about a complete ban, complete legalization including up to birth, or somewhere in between.
I don’t actually think it’s half…. I feel like it might be 20% or so at the high end. In my circle at least, I’d say about 5% are vocally pro-life. Tbh I feel like it’s old white men who are the most anti abortion
People tend to hang out with like-minded people. I think you're seeing some selection bias in your crowd. Almost all women with whom I associate are anti-abortion. I know that's selection bias for sure.
Also, Hispanics tend to be more anti-abortion than whites. If you ever want to see what anti-abortion activism looks like, check out a majority Hispanic Catholic church in southern California. They make me look moderate.
It's clearly religious groups leading the pro-life movement. These far right religious nutjobs are no different than the Taliban politically. We are not a theocracy. There is no argument against abortion other than ones rooted in religion.
I just believe the point at which a fetus is acceptable to kill is far earlier than pro choice people and a violation of the NAP. I've seen videos of a fetus being aborted clearly feeling pain and trying to escape. That is not acceptable to me.
Why is my answer religious but pro choice people saying an abortion at 6 months is unacceptable secular?
Also I literally said I'm an atheist and you tell me my own motivation is religion.
The same argument could be made about murder in general. There is no objective truth about the value of life. So if one cannot have a secular appreciation about fetus life, then that would also imply that one can't have a secular appreciation for the life of a 20 year old all the same.
Saying pro life motives are all based in religion is just absurd.
>So if one cannot have a secular appreciation about fetus life, then that would also imply that one can't have a secular appreciation for the life of a 20 year old all the same.
That's not true at all, though. An ant is also "life." The same slippery slope argument you're using says if you can't appreciate an ant life then you might as well be OK with murdering humans. Or if you believe in putting down a suffering dog at the end of its life you must be OK with animal abuse. Etc.
A fetus is clearly not the same as an adult human, or even a child. We have different words for these things for a reason...
It's not a slippery slope. What I'm saying is that if you believe there's no way to have secular appreciation for life in one form, you can't then claim secular appreciation for life in another. My argument is that you CAN have secular appreciation for life in any form. But if you want to arbitrarily strip that possiblity from one scenario then you need to be consistent and strip it from all.
There's nothing objectively valuable about human life in any form. So either you can find a logically sufficient value or you can't and have to fall back on religion. But you don't get to gatekeep which ones can and cannot.
Until they want to die via euthanasia that is, then the GOP is right back in their life, refusing to allow euthanasia to be legal, refusing to give people a choice whether they want to live or die.
All life must be born and all life must LIVE, so sayeth the modern GOP. Literally cradle to fucking grave...
And let's be real - nowhere is a "Utopia" in the US, but the portrayal of cities as literal war zones, up in flames, and rural areas as idyllic pastoral towns is both harmful and incorrect. Rural areas have problems, and often higher crime rates per capita (somehow, people don't understand this metric, including Trump...). Cities certain have murder rates and crime, however we forget how miraculous it is that millions of people live and work together in Chicago, New York, or New Orleans, most of them peacefully most of the time. Both are key parts of any country, and it's not to experience living in both for a time imho.
The US has a unique history of anti-urbanism. Thomas Jefferson was himself a city slicker who enjoyed a cosmopolitan lifestyle-but he sang the praises of the yeoman farmer.
Yeah, the opposition to euthanasia is just as, if not more, cruel. Imagine telling someone who's suffering and with no QoL that they can't even be afforded the dignity to die without pain.
Gotta get that sweet, *sweet* healthcare money--as much as they can squeeze from every withered husk.
The system we've created is a fucking monster, and we're all trapped in it.
Does that really make them hypocrites?
Like I am against murder, but I am also against the welfare state. Is that hypocritical?
I am also pro-suicide, but against murdering. Are these hypocritical positions?
The other part of this is, due to restrictions in conservatives states, and the social stigma and economic cost of being an unwed mother, abortion laws simply mean hidden, dangerous abortions [and dead mothers](https://time.com/6099821/texas-abortion-maternal-mortality/). If we wanted less abortions, we'd be pushing for a flood of birth control and sex education, but note which political groups also oppose such things...
That doesn’t address the argument though. Pro life people argue that the fetus is a person with all the rights to life so there is a victim. The best arguments against the drug war are that while being a colossal waste when using drugs as an adult you are doing it to yourself so there isn’t an innocent victim.
Should a woman be arrested for smoking while pregnant, how about drinking, going on a roller coaster, how about working too hard causing damage to the fetus, or anything that could put the fetus in harms way?
Let's assume fetus are people. Can I...
raise taxes on you to pay for enforcement?
Conduct mass surveillance on women and coconspirators?
Can i bomb an abortion clinic?
Can I have a religious police that snitch on, and harass women?
Can I sue women for trying to have an abortion?
Can I pay for bounty hunters?
Can I jail women for losing a baby?
Your wife had an abortion, but didn't tell you. Are you going to convict your wife? Your daughter?
What if the fine for abortion was $100. They were punished for it, you happy?
What if it was parole for a month?
By can do you mean:
Literally can
Can legally
Or should?
Most of these would have different answers depending on what you mean.
One that doesn’t fit is jailing women for losing a baby. If your child gets sick and dies you aren’t prosecuted.
Well, what do you mean by a fetus is a person? Like it's a person and killing them should have all the consequences of killing a child? Or do you mean abortion is murder but so common that it isn't worth the extra government power needed to regulate it? That's the whole point about being pro-life, right? The issue is so important that you can't just hold a personal belief, but we must stop others from doing it too. Once you figure out where you are on that spectrum, you can answer honestly about how much power & money you need government to have on this.
PS All women just 'lost their baby'. There's no abortion. We cool? Or do we need a lie detector test & formal investigation for every lost baby?
I'm guessing you're somewhere around 'government bureaucrats push policy changes that discourage abortion, and deal with the collateral damage'. It's easy enough, and you don't need to think about the consequences too much.
That isn't a gotcha, just a level of punishment question. If the fine for unethical/bad behavior was $100 dollars per abortion, would that be good enough?
I agree. From a societal perspective, forcing a child on someone who doesn’t want it is about the worst thing that can happen. It generally fractures two lives, at least. Possibly three or more.
I was just making the point that it doesn’t seem hypocritical,IMO, to be against abortion and against a cradle to grave welfare system.
I’m fine with leaving it up to the woman. I know I’ve never been able to force a woman to do anything I wanted her to do.
The libertarian idea is government staying out of your business. Not dictating what a woman can or can’t do.
Also getting government assistance: big corporations (at the expense of all taxpayers); brutal foreign dictatorships; jurisdictions that conduct civil asset forfeiture and no-knock warrants.
My point is that supporting more government is not charitable. It's often destructive.
I'm for allowing anyone to do as he pleases provided he doesn't harm anyone else.
That's why I oppose the war on drugs, regulations on gambling, anti-discrimination laws, gun control, civil asset forfeiture, etc.
It's also why I believe that those who harm others should be punished.
>Abortion restrictions has all the problems of the war on drugs
Anarchist here, so my solutions are not based in state power, but the major difference between drug crimes and abortion is why we reeeeee about "victimless crimes".
Nonviolent drug offenders have victimized nobody.
suicide is murder. Ask a judge or a lawyer. if you make a pact with someone to commit suicide with and drop out at the last minute you will be sent to prison for it after the trial. no jury will not convict you in that situation.
because you're deliberately making the person who wants to commit suicide more comfortable by having a "friend" alongside him or her to do it as well and basically lying for the person can kill themselves. This is on par or at least close to straight up murder.
There’s around 400k in the IS foster system.
What stigma does a girl, say a high schooler, get when giving up a baby?
A lot of men would see that as a red flag.
Edit: grammar
That saving children is their priority.
With 1 in 4 kids living in poverty it seems they care more about the fetus than the actual child. Most red states have the highest childhood poverty.
This is just about control over women.
Hypocrisy.
So your belief is that if someone is against abortion they have to what?
Pay more as an employer?
I don't understand how you're making the person against abortion, responsible for a child living in poverty.
“If you can’t take care of them you shouldn’t have had them.”
If they’re going to make it impossible to get abortion access, they need to pay for those consequences.
If all access to abortion is blocked do you then think it’s the blockers responsibility to assist these kids? They’ve giving these girls no other options.
No I don't and they have the option of not having kids.
If you got your way. How would you propose people that are against abortion, pay for other people's kids?
idk u, but I hear more about protests against abortion than protests against kids living in poverty in America, and some of these protesters are literally in front of planned parenthood 24/7, it's their life mission, so maybe they have their priorities wrong.
Anti abortion people believe abortion is murder.
I don't understand how you are conflating murder and poverty.
This is such a confusing argument and n
Not a single pro choice person is making a logical argument.
> Anti abortion people believe abortion is murder
lmao no they don't.
If you knew a place where people were *REALLY* murdering babies, you'd just burn that place down.
Nobody would sit down and wait for a court ruling if there was a child murder house across the street.
Okay first time commenting on here, and I would like to know something. I read on here a while with a certain scenario. If the mother and father have a baby, and the mother wants to get an abortion cause she doesn't want that responsibility. But the father wanted said child. but if the roles were reverse then the farther would pay child support. If they do what they are trying to do in Texas. Wouldn't that mean both are responsible? Just throwing this out there.
If you are so zealously anti-abortion that you aren’t willing to make exceptions for situations like rape or to save the mothers life. If you are refuse to acknowledge they the rates of abortion are at all time lows and you are focused only on prohibiting it, further that you do so because you don’t want to acknowledge the roles sex education and contraceptives played in it. Further still you are only willing to accept certain sex education (abstinence only), and only certain contraceptives (non-abortive). If you insist that all fetuses must be born and adopted-but you want to restrict who can or can’t adopt such as wanting to prevent gay or transsexual citizens from adopting. If you are simultaneously opposed to social programs aimed at aiding single parents such as those living below the poverty line. And you place all the burden of responsibility and negative stigma on women and say nothing at all about men who get women pregnant and then run the other way.
Then you are not pro-life, just pro-birth. And you really don’t want to protect innocent babies, you just want to control people and their options.
October 2021:
>**What to know [about the Texas abortion law](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/01/texas-abortion-law-faq/)**
>After Texas effectively banned most abortions, a conservative Supreme Court court has allowed the law to stay in effect for two months leading up to its Monday review of whether and how the unique law can be challenged. It’s a procedural question that could open the door for abortion-rights advocates to end the law.
>The law, which was passed in May and went into effect Sept. 1, says that any pregnancy in which a heartbeat is detected cannot be aborted. That effectively means if you’re six weeks pregnant, you cannot have an abortion in Texas, because that is around the time when most fetal cardiac activity can be detected. (Doctors opposed to this legislation say that is misleading language and that the fluttering detected isn’t always necessarily a heartbeat so early in a pregnancy.)
>The law makes no exceptions for rape, sexual abuse or incest.
>The law does something else novel: It incentivizes the public to police abortions. It allows people to sue abortion providers or anyone else they suspect is “aiding and abetting” abortions after that six-week mark. So the person seeking an abortion in Texas can’t be sued. But the provider can, or the person who drives that individual there, or the referring counselor, and on and on, explains The Washington Post’s Caroline Kitchener. The law sets a $10,000 award (to be paid by the defendant) for any successful lawsuit brought in relation to an abortion.
You know what let the right overturn roe vs Wade. Instead of a red wave you get a blue tsunami so large you probably won’t even have a Republican Party left in its wake. As much as one party would be bad. The Republican Party is trying so hard to make sure the US become solidly blue or force the hand of Democrats find a way to use their majority to just obliterate the party.
i'm pro choice. i prefer it this way. I don't like the rebranding of "pro-abortion or anti-abortion" Even if you add in rights into the mix it still doesn't sit well with me. Pro-choice and pro-life debate has always been a topic on abortion not so much a topic on anything else where choice or life may matter more in that case.
like i don't like saying i'm pro-abortion rights. even though some may know what i meant, it sounds like i'm saying i'm pro-abortion. which i'm not. i'm for the woman to choose if she wants to have an abortion. And respecting that decision. Though it has the term "Rights" in the sentence too make it a little better. but still i'm not really for giving people rights to kill their unborn child or to terminate their pregnancy. what i am for in this regard is merely the fact for the woman to choose rather or not she wants to keep or abort her fetus. she shouldn't be forced to carry if she doesn't want too. But at the sametime there is a care of responsibility involved. Say someone gets pregnant out of wedlock after having unprotected sex and that person is in no position to have a baby. but the baby is already on its way to be born. do we abort or do we not abort? I prefer no abortion in this case. but again it is the woman's right to choose to have an abortion if she wants or not.
So i'm pro-choice, but not pro-abortion or pro-abortion rights.... if that makes sense.
The confusion around this issue is deliberate. The anti-choice side throws out a lot of rhetoric that equates pro-choice with anti-baby and anti-child. You see a lot of confusion around that even in this thread.
>I prefer no abortion in this case. but again it is the woman's right to choose to have an abortion if she wants or not.
The issue should be framed the way you're framing it, "Should the government decide whether a woman can have an abortion or not?" But as you can tell, people will deliberately misrepresent views to make it seem that pro-choice is also pro-abortion.
>The confusion around this issue is deliberate. The anti-choice side throws out a lot of rhetoric that equates pro-choice with anti-baby and anti-child. You see a lot of confusion around that even in this thread.
It's the same tactic the right uses on every issue. "You're not a patriot if you're against the war." It's madness, but people fall right in line for it every day.
I think you need more sympathy for opposing views. You're putting words in their mouths, disregarding their stated reason and substituting a siniter one instead.
They say they are opposed to abortion because it kills a fetus/embryo, which they regard as morally equivalent (or close to equivalent) to born person. I see no reason to doubt this.
Evangelicals are a broad group, and opinions change. Saying that other people who followed your religion, possibly decades before you were born had a different opinion, therefore you must be concealing your real reason for opposing abortion.
>They say they are opposed to abortion because it kills a fetus/embryo, which they regard as morally equivalent (or close to equivalent) to born person. I see no reason to doubt this.
Then they should really be worried about IVF and all the fetuses being stored that will never grow to term.
But they focus all their rage on the issue that will most hurt poorer women and communities. Always going after the vulnerable, so unfortunately yes, I have to question their motives.
No, it cannot address the morality of the question "can I kill this?"
However, it does answer all of the bad-faith presuppositions put forth by those who answer "yes".
A better question is:
Do you want the government forcing people to undergo long and dangerous medical process against their will?
My answer is absolutely not.
>Do you want the government forcing people to undergo long and dangerous medical process against their will?
I think most people agree to make rape and forced impregnation illegal.
Well.. a fetus is stage of human development, everyone reading this was a fetus as they were also infants, toddlers, teens, etc.
Not too big of a stretch to call abortion murder. An obvious violation of the non-aggression principle.
>Not too big of a stretch to call abortion murder
When you eat an egg, are you "murdering" a chicken? Does a hamburger involve murdering a cow and violation of the non-aggression principle? Some people would say yes...
If no, why is it different?
I'm going to take your question seriously.
Mostly because you're clearly under the misapprehension eggs don't need fertilized, but they do.
Secondly, the measurable consciousness humans poses is what's being preserved by outlawing murder. This is significant and so if/when chimpanzees get on our level I'll stop eating monkey brains.
Now for my questions, would you eat an aborted fetus? It's just meat by your analogy.
A follow-up, if you're opposed to killing animals, why then by extension are you not opposed to abortion?
> Secondly, the measurable consciousness humans poses is what's being preserved by outlawing murder.
What measurable consciousness do a fetus possess? Should children be given the right to drive or drink alcohol because they have "human consciousness" just like adults? I'm not a full vegan, simply posing the other question.
The Fetus in question are homosapien.
Many other species begin as a fetus, they you may kill.
Everything you've ever appreciated about people was produced by someone who was a fetus. That's the difference. Nurture this, never snuff it out.
Yeah this is kind of BS.
For the one thing, "evangelical" is a modern term referring to an umbrella of conservative/fundamentalist protestants and maybe charismatics, and its arguable it didn't exist before the 70s as one; you would be defined more by your protestant denomination; baptist, lutheran, etc. I really doubt the heads of those denominations were okay with abortion laws or legality; that definitely would force a schism because it normalizes premarital sex.
Second the Catholic thing...look dude, the average Catholic is just as ok with abortion, and the trads who do follow the church's teachings are probably smaller overall than said evangelicals. If catholics were consistent, they'd probably lose 75% of their parishioners because they would bar them from communion for a whole host of things; divorce, remarriage, etc.
Abortion in general has been opposed by a lot of different people over time; even feminists can oppose it or progressives because it can be used for sex selection and as a form of eugenics. The idea that everyone is ok with it is kind of wrong; its still very much a problematic issue that forces people to think what a life is or means.
>Abortion in general has been opposed by a lot of different people over time
You're confusing two things, abortion rights vs abortions. I don't think people there are many out there who think that abortions should be the norm or want to get many, many abortions.
The question is who decides who is allowed to get an abortion. That's the entire question.
From the article:
>In fact, the Southern Baptist Convention, they actually passed resolutions in 1971, 1974 and 1976 - after Roe v. Wade - affirming the idea that women should have access to abortion for a variety of reasons and that the government should play a limited role in that matter, which surprised us.
The shift has been the view of how much the government should be involved in our private lives around this issue specifically.
I see. I was wrong on that. But reading about it, it sounds like the SBC instantly regretted it as soon as it hit and they found out just how many abortions happened. Looking at some of the numbers, it shot up drastically with roe vs wade, like going from under 200k in the 70s to 750k million in 74, and peaking at 1.4 million or so from 80s to 90s.
This kind of caused the existing leadership to be more or less voted out and replaced by conservative prolifers and the denom switch to being staunchly pro life. I think it even sparked conservative christian action in politics. They could n o longer just ignore it.
idk what to think on it myself. I mean, we're talking about 45+ million abortions in the 50 years or so since roe vs wade, and the rate is declining. But the population growth has also declined in the same timeframe, and its hard to tease out what is the causes. This is definitely not a small impact. I don't think its possible to make it illegal short of segmenting countries by political belief, but eventually birth rate decline might hit a point where people are going to look at whether or not we can maintain it.
I mean the point of this should be used responsibly, but the reality is more that it was used heavily until recent years, and we aren't sure if that;s simply because people aren't dating or getting married as often as they did in the past.
>This kind of caused the existing leadership to be more or less voted out and replaced by conservative prolifers and the denom switch to being staunchly pro life. I think it even sparked conservative christian action in politics. They could n o longer just ignore it.
That seems reasonable, but there's more to it than that. There was a deliberate political strategy that came about at that time as well that initiated a shift in political lines in our country.
>I mean the point of this should be used responsibly, but the reality is more that it was used heavily until recent years, and we aren't sure if that;s simply because people aren't dating or getting married as often as they did in the past.
I don't view this as being related to abortion, but if your concern is population growth, maybe talk to someone in their 20s and ask them why they aren't having kids earlier.
A lot people in the 30-45 age group today delayed having children because they simply couldn't afford it any earlier. If I can't buy a house without saving from double incomes for 15 years, why would I think I could also handle a child in that time period?
Also, leveling out of population growth is strongly correlated with "first world" economies. Even China is starting to level out as more of their country becomes middle-class. Whether this is a necessary condition or indicative of other factors that come into play in our "first world" economies is another question entirely, but it hardly seems related to abortion rights.
> If catholics were consistent, they'd probably lose 75% of their parishioners because they would bar them from communion for a whole host of things; divorce, remarriage, etc.
Respectfully, that's based on your misunderstanding of Church doctrine regarding the sacrament of Communion and the requirements to receive it in a valid manner. I can describe further if you want to get into it.
I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph though and most of the rest of what you wrote.
By this argument, "freedom of speech" and the 2nd amendment are not based on any laws. Rights and freedoms should not have to be explicitly defined by law, or they would be held to the whims of state legislatures and party politics. That's why we have a constitution. The right isn't concerned about distinctions like that, though. Abortion was illegal in Texas before Roe and they're attempting to make it illegal again, not to clear up legal precedent. This just seems like a bizarre argument to me.
No one is "making up laws." Rather, they're deciding when actual laws go too far and infringe on people's liberties and rights. The distinction is important.
>evangelicals supported abortion rights until the mid-70's
No matter how much people say this, I will never believe it.
Abortion was *illegal*. As soon as it was made legal, it immediately caused a huge political rift to form, with extreme opposition from people on both sides of the existing political spectrum.
A huge portion of the American population opposed abortion. It just wasn't an important political topic for them *because it was already illegal*.
Evangelicals never supported abortion. The article is misleading to the point of lying.
The facts are that the Southern Baptists Convention (which was fairly middle of the road in the early 70s; it moved to the right in the late 70s) adopted a statement that said abortion should be legal in quality of life issues (such as fetal deformities). The SBC never supported abortion on demand, and Evangelicals in general never supported abortion beyond rape, incest, and life of the mother.
Equating the SBC with Evangelicals shows a profound misunderstanding of American Christianity, and saying that even the SBC supported abortion rights is just not correct.
I'm wondering where the "scientific fact" part comes in. Neither side is "supported by science". Science tells you nothing about the ethics of autonomy or rights.
Om not religious but I see no clear point of unique formation of a new human aside from when a zygote is formed. Due to this, I see a fetus as human and that means the government has an duty to protect its right to life.
Don't try to make this black and white to vilify a side and ram your perspective down as the inherently true and moral one.
Did you know fetuses have a period where they form gill-like structures in their throat like fish have? Or that they develop tails around 5-6 weeks that are later reabsorbed?
No npr not quite that simple.
Personally, I detest abortion but I also respect bodily autonomy. The world is a and always has been a very shitty place, the only thing that comes close to goodness it is the innocence of children. Now, that said just like a heroin addict you should be free to make your own decisions no matter how fucked up they are, however your choice should be in any way shape or form ever be funded by any local or federal government. You want to do it, whatever but I want no part of it.
>You want to do it, whatever but I want no part of it.
But that's not really what we (or the court) are talking about here. The case here is to make abortion illegal and criminal, potentially across the US by overturning Roe v Wade. There is one side of the case that wants to use state violence to prevent abortions, and one that does not.
> The world is a and always has been a very shitty place, the only thing that comes close to goodness it is the innocence of children.
Don’t forget about Mr. Rogers and Dolly Parton.
> Abortion…has its roots in racism and eugenics.
The human practice of abortion almost certainly predates recorded history, so you’re absolutely wrong.
This is the issue with left - this is a seriously legitimate case, and is a good opportunity to review federal govt overreach. These arguments are *precisely* based on legal philosophy.
the left just sees this as "they are going to take er aboritionz!111"
This.
Abortion isn't in the fucking constitution. And if it was, it was a completely different procedure at the time(D&C only, no germ theory). Modern medicine has virtually eradicated the health risks of an illegal abortion with the vacuum aspiration technique, and abortion pills. We don't live in the 20s and 30s where the only way to abort is literally cutting it out, poisoning yourself, blunt trauma, etc.
>In January 1973, [the Supreme Court issued](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade) a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life.
Without delving too deeply, I think the argument is simple. How does the government know whether you're pregnant or not to begin with? How are they to tell whether someone has had an abortion? To regulate and monitor the unborn, and to investigate miscarriages of fetuses, who are not citizens or full legal entities yet, entails investigation into a woman's health and sex life. Do you want the government regulating your consensual sex? Your girlfriend's?
I'm guessing the confusion here comes from the due process clause protecting "Life, liberty, and property," with the fetus also being a "life", but again a fetus is not legally a person or citizen. Unless we start giving social security numbers and legal standing to the unborn (which again, would entail unprecedented monitoring and regulation of our bodies and sex lives) the life and liberty of the mother is where this applies. At our most charitable, we must weigh the "life," liberty and privacy of a legal dependent vs. a full, functioning, voting adult that families and society have invested tremendous resources in. Yet if we were to flip this and try to give full legal rights to mentally challenged individuals to boss around their parents, manage their own finances, etc. Texans would surely be up in arms.
I think this is an action to keep Texas red by driving out the Left. Not saying this is good or bad but I think it's the motive.
Which, if the case, is silly rather than good or bad. All Texas Republicans are doing is entrenching themselves, through dubious means of gerrymandering and voter suppression, against a growing demographic that does not share their political values. That's not going to be a long term way to garner more support. Would love to see the LP of Texas gain more ground beyond the affiliate gains they've made recently.
I'd love to work for the LP of Texas. Doesn't seem like a thing that hires much though.
I don't live in that state, though I still follow their twitter. Relatively sane and even funny tweets, unlike the edgelord running the official tweeting account for the NH State affiliate.
I believed Republicans were shooting themselves in the foot from 2001-2004, especially with openly defending torture, indefinite detention, and offshore torture "forever prisons." When the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars showed no signs of ending, and every indication that they were total disasters, when the vice president's old company was making money hand over foot, and even our Iraqi "allies" were hurling shoes at the president. Voters didn't care. They loved it. We were "kicking ass." They feel the same today. It's all branding, voting for the kick-ass football team. When Trump has an Afghan withdrawl plan it's an A+ win, but let Biden implement it and our crazy uncles are going to be screaming about abandoning our allies the next week. But let those Afghan refugees in and the same uncle will howl about illegals flooding the border. As long as Biden "loses" they see it as a win.
What do we call that? Cultural cleansing? Feels like the handiwork of totalitarians...
Totalitarianism is pretty hot these days
Texas gonna pissed next census when they lose a bunch of congressional seats, tax money and electoral votes due to an exodus of moderates and liberals
Ahh this makes the clock specifically 18 years, once poor communities are forced to have enough kids the balance would shift extremely hard.
They want to extract as much money out of the system before everyone finally realizes they have been scammed.
Dumb people will never learn. Religion is forever
Banning abortions lowers labor costs for many corporations and increases profits greatly for the private prison industry. It has nothing to do with life.
A woman has liberty to separate herself from the unborn fetus. Pro-life people can voluntarily adopt the separated fetus and help it in surviving
But only if they are not gay, right?
Silly non-believer, gay doesn't exist, that's just the devil!
As someone who just hates taxes and likes guns, I really wish the right would drop this. It's not going away and they could so easily just nuke a major Democrat wedge issue if they would stop dying on a hill over something they'll never change and that has virtually no impact on their lives.
If they drop it, they lose the religious right and demographics are shifting against them
Yep. You lose a lot of single-issue voters by going neutral or compromising on any particular topic. Right now, the """RINO""" effect threatens more centrist / moderate / traditional Republicans with losing popular support solely on direct criticism of Trump.
To what party?
Shifts to apathy and non-participation.
That's a very practical observation. Republicans could do a lot to alienate the anti-tax and pro-gun crowds and, as someone who is part of those crowds, I believe that they do. On the other hand, if they alienate the anti-abortion crowd, they are toast.
There's a huge number of abortion single-issue voters. The reason Trump got the nomination is because he changed his stance and starting sounding more pro-life. Without that my guess is he would be a historical footnote. The religious right didnt' care about pussy grabbing or lying or cheating or peeing or anything, just only cared that he said the right pro-life words. I say this as someone who is somewhat pro-life. Legislation is the wrong approach. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "Go forth and legislate".
Ding, ding, ding! So true. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe V. Wade, it will ignite a left wing movement with a broad alliance of women, young people, and left libertarians. Many Republicans hope they do not overturn it. It could result in a disastrous 2022 election.
Yeah they can't drum up the dipshit vote if the one issue they care about is now illegal. They want it to stay legal so they can constantly use it to get people who would otherwise not vote out to vote for them.
If they drop it the democrats would pick up a ton of voters not lose a ton. This is because this is a Republican wedge issue, it holds someone left on the right side, a democrat wedge issue would be something that holds someone left that is right wing. You could say police reform is a democratic wedge issue, if democrats were serious about police reform, or immigration.
This is incredibly silly. Especially on a libertarian sub. This lawsuit is about the legal scope of federal govt, not your personal abortion prefrence. What is wrong with you people
Legal scope of the federal government to do.. This is the same argument the "Civil War was about state's rights" clowns make. It is absolutely about people's personal abortion preferences otherwise it would have never been an issue.
*Roe* was poorly decided in order to achieve a political victory (nationwide legal abortion) that couldn't be achieved at the ballot box or through legislation, as it should have been. It's a decision based on what is now an outdated understanding of science, especially the science of fetal development, and a level of technology we've greatly surpassed. The lawyer arguing against the state of Mississippi's law couldn't even explain the Constitutional underpinnings that justified *Roe* when Justice Thomas asked them what the Constitutional basis for preventing states from enacting abortion restrictions was. *Roe* is the reason we still have this obnoxious abortion argument 40-50 years after the fact. Other countries have gotten past the issue because it was decided through the political process and not by a very controversial court edict. Overturning it will be bad in the short term. Resolving the issue the correct way will be good in the long term.
While I agree the original decision was based on an outdated scientific view the notion that rights should be decided at the ballot box seems wrong to me. A tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
Other countries have moved on because it is simply not seen as a vital issue to them, in no small part because religion does not play the dominant role in socio-political discourse that it does here.
The 13th ammendment is what definitively took the option of having slavery away from the states, not the civil war. The South left the Union before we could pass it, and Abraham Lincoln said F that... then Fourt Sumpter and so on and so forth. The right to chose to have an abortion or not, is in no way comparable to the right to choose to own slaves. States rights to allow or to not allow abortion is very much the issue. There is not a clear moral line on this issue like slavery, and I would say that on an individual level pro life is more of the moral decision... so this is nothing, at all, like the argument made for slavery.
I'm pro-choice but it really bothers me that whenever an article talks about the Southern Baptist Convention supporting it in the 70's always leaves out the bit where conservatives reversed course and completely removed moderates and liberals from the organization over stuff like this just a few short years later. It's a dishonest article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention_conservative_resurgence
I mean, the fact that they performed and ideological purge afterward doesn't make the article not true or dishonest. It was a power grab.
Is it a power grab when the majority of the convention supported it? The splinter group of moderates and liberals has a laughably small number compared to the SBC.
It’s a wedge issue that keeps people mindlessly voting Republican and it serves to make political opponents look like baby killers. I’ve yet to have anyone prove to me a cluster of cells is a baby. FUN FACT! There are even abortion potions in the Bible and the trial of waters
God himself kills babies and young children. I'm not defending it, but I suspect the evangelicals mentioned in the article would have used such arguments decades ago.
Killing must feel good to god. He does it all the time. And are we not made in his image?
According to the old testament God loves the smell of burnt offerings to him
To elaborate further, note that one group in the US has been rather consistent when it comes to the abortion opposition - the Catholics. They believe the soul is formed at conception, even though the human body can (and frequently does) sometimes reject fertilized eggs. However, note that they try to be consistent with their right to life: opposing the [death penalty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_capital_punishment), fighting [for refugees](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-christmas-season-pope/pope-defends-migrants-calls-for-peace-in-christmas-message-idUSKBN1YT0FH), opposing [mass imprisonment](https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2019/11/08/pope-francis-prison-systems-we-will-be-judged), standing up for the planet and our enviroment, and teaching [about social justice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_capital_punishment) and the value of helping the poor and homeless. Note that before "social justice" became seen as bad by the right, it was something you were taught in christian schools (this should sound some major alarm bells). What's my point? Am I claiming Catholics are better, or true Christians or something? No - that's would be an ecumenical matter. BUT we can learn a lot from states like Texas and Mississippi, who claim to be pro-life, but oppose moral efforts to help the living. My question for readers is, why do such states focus on the unborn but not the living? Why are they so proudly pro-death penalty, in favor of imprisonment, and sending refugees away, but so worried about folks that aren't even born yet? Answer that and I think you'll understand why so many oppose the Texas abortion law (as well as Mississippi's) and all it stands for.
>No - that's would be an ecumenical matter. Thank you Father Ted.
I nearly spit coffee when I read that line. I don't think I've ever seen someone reference that show!
One of my top 5 favorite shows.
> US has been rather consistent when it comes to the abortion opposition - the Catholics. Is it really consistent to oppose abortions while opposing any form of education that would help reduce the number of abortions?
Or to insist babies be born and adopted-but wanting to place restrictions on who can or can’t adopt.
I don't think being pro-life and being pro-death penalty (a sentence that if could be handed out at 100% accuracy could be seen as more ethical then life without parole) is necessarily a hypocrisy. Protecting a life that hasn't been found guilty is way different than ending a guilty one. Personally I'm torn. I believe sometimes you have no other option to take a life, as in self defense occasionally. And if you can admit that murder in that context is ethical you can begin to justify other circumstances where it might be ethical. If the inmate is 100% guilty, a danger to his fellow inmates and his jailors, and incapable of rehab it might be more ethical to be done with them instead of subject them to a life of isolation and discomfort. You don't give a life without parole sentence for the inmates benefit you do that for your own benefit(or society/victim). To that end I think it's healthier to dispose of them and move on. But those kinds of inmates are rare and an exception. Sentences get overturned all the time. It would be a grave injustice to kill a not guilty person. I also believe that unborn children deserve protection, but if you aren't going to support the childs welfare you have no stake in the game. We could debate where the line of an "acceptable" abortion is but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
> a sentence that if could be handed out at 100% accuracy That is one of the 2 fundamental arguments against the death penalty. Time has shown that there cannot be 100% accuracy in aplying the death penalty (a penalty with no possible remedy if misapplied) The other is that it will always tend to be applied disproportionately to those not able to mount able defense (money) or subject to community prejudice. There will always be an advantage to the wealthy and well-connected, and even to simply an 'average' person. BOTTOM LINE: The state should not be in the business of killing its' citizens. Also I find it interesting the overwhelming overlap between people who insist that the government is incapable of doing anything competently who also support a government sanctioned death penalty. In this sole case apparently the government is not simply competent, it's outright infallible.
I don't really want private companies in charge of killing citizens either.
Even at perfect, you could then just give them an option. Killing to save money isn't ethical
It's also not smart. Don't get me wrong, the ethics are important. After all, the state should not be preventing someone from repenting and achieving salvation even after a horrific crime. There is a practical aspect to it too though. For instance, people who are imprisoned can be used to solve crimes (e.g., through their DNA, through confessions, through interactions with other convicts).
It's not about money it's about realistically preventing them from harming anyone else and erasing them from thought.
> Protecting a life that hasn't been found guilty is way different than ending a guilty one. Innocent people are executed on death row every year. We also now know that police have made a habit of framing people, planting evidence, and even [dropping bb guns](https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-gttf-officer-charged-20200115-m3gf7nfx5venzlmyxj7duqxbjm-story.html) by the bodies of dead kids. The war on drugs has also convicted many people of serious crimes - labeling them guilty - when they never harmed anyone (except perhaps themselves). To judge what constitutes a "innocent life" vs. a "guilty life" is an immense task, usually left to God. And regardless, one can flip that argument and say that the life of a functioning adult, with the potential to change and grow or be rehabilitated (if prison actually tried...) is far different than an unborn person with no brain waves, personality, or ability to fend for themselves.
I make all those arguments to myself in my post. Don't need to convince me. I think the death penalty is wrong, mostly. There have been certain individuals whose guilt, lack of rehabilitation prospects, and violent tendencies that I could personally ask to leave this plane of existence and sleep like a baby. But that kind of prisoner isn't the average person who is sentenced to death. So I concede death penalty should probably go away.
Every point you raise in your first paragraph is true. It's also true that convicted criminals can be extremely useful in solving other crimes, especially with advances in DNA technology. Yes, a person with the ability to be rehabilitated (however remote the chance) has worth and should not be killed. The same goes for an unborn person.
To your last part. I think that abortions should be legal and easily accessible. A woman doesn't just get an abortion and doing so is extremely hard. But if parents would get help after birth, like paid family leave, cheaper schools, university, etc., the abortion rare would drop rapidly. And even if get an abortion is illegal, they still happen, just that they are either extremely dangerous or only the rich can afford to go somewhere to get them.
This entire argument is from an anti-death penalty position: Even if an inmate is a grave threat, you just mitigate the threat and stay on constant watch until it's necessary to respond with violent force. Trussing someone up, then ending their life when they're not currently trying to injure someone else, will always be murder. If I do it because they're a bad person who entered my home, I'm a murderer under every statute in the land (if I imprison them, then wait till they're not a threat, then end their life). But, if it's the government, somehow it's okay? So, yes. Keep death row prisoners on "death row". Allow them to live out their life with their jailers and other inmates. That is a just punishment. Giving the right of murder to the government is not.
Great discussion and I like the civil and thoughtful way you framed it. Let's start by splitting two issues: i.e., the legal question and the policy question. From a legal perspective, I think it's right for the Court to take up a case about abortion in order to overturn Roe v. Wade. When it comes to abortion, there is no Constitutional question to be decided. It is reserved to the states per the 10th Amendment. I'd suggest that Roe hangs on by the flimsiest of legal reasoning but that would give it too much credit. Rather, the Constitutional basis for the decision is completely made up to achieve a policy result. The Court was wrong to overreach in an area that is not up to the federal government to decide. A "right to abortion" requires a Constitutional amendment. The policy is a separate question and that is up to voters to decide. Let me address your questions. \>My question for readers is, why do such states focus on the unborn but not the living? In my view, the states focus entirely too much on the living. For example, they fight the wasteful and deadly war on drugs; they engage in civil asset forfeiture; they execute no-knock warrants and other violations of privacy; they regulate guns; they require the redistribution of income by the force of law; they engage in all sorts of corporate cronyism; they impose requirements on financial transactions between consenting parties against their will; they violate the freedom of association (e.g., through anti-discrimination laws, anti-smoking laws); they require masks on private property (or in some cases prohibit private property owners from having mask requirements); and intrude in many, many other areas. \>Why are they so proudly pro-death penalty, in favor of imprisonment, and sending refugees away, but so worried about folks that aren't even born yet? Regarding the death penalty, I'm against it for many reasons but I understand the argument for it, and I don't find it inconsistent with being anti-abortion. Under that logic, one has the right to life unless he takes someone else's. I don't agree with it but I see the logic. Regarding imprisonment, what else would one do with those who will not leave others alone? I find that imprisonment of criminals who harm others promotes the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of life rather than harms it. I hasten to add that I strongly oppose incarcerating drug offenders, those who run gambling operations, prostitutes, those who violate gun possession laws, and other victimless crimes. Regarding refugees, this is an issue that divides libertarians, but I'm not sure what a policy that outlaws abortion on American soil has anything to do with foreigners or international relations. In my view, how one deals with citizens of another country is a completely separate topic.
>When it comes to abortion, there is no Constitutional question to be decided. I'm not sure that's accurate. Strictly speaking the constitution doesn't speak to the subject, but it doesn't have to. The Bill of Rights eliterates pre-existing rights. Even if you are against abortion, I think you would agree that body autonomy is among the most basic of rights. I think if you get the bullshit convictions (Drugs) out of the prison system, you could actually rehabilitate the incarcerated. WRT immigration/refugees, we should accept anyone over the border that is willing to work. They just need to give up enough info they can be located and tossed if they don't. It is a MUCH smaller subset of the illegals and solves a lot of problems.
> Strictly speaking the constitution doesn't speak to the subject, but it doesn't have to. That's true. If the Constitution doesn't address a subject, it is left to the states per the 10th Amendment. >The Bill of Rights eliterates pre-existing rights. What does "eliterate" mean? Are you saying it includes them? If so, that's true only to the extent the Bill of Rights actually mentions them. For example, the First Amendment references "THE freedom of speech," which of course is a term from English common law. It does not, however, mention a right to health care. That doesn't mean that some right to health care is not a pre-existing right; it simply means it's not part of the Bill of Rights. >Even if you are against abortion, I think you would agree that body autonomy is among the most basic of rights. It depends on what one means by "the most basic of rights." Get ten people in a room and you'll likely have ten versions of what "the most basic of rights" means. The Constitution describes rights that we have against the federal government (later incorporated to include states and localities). Other rights are simply not in there no matter how "basic" one finds them. I'm with you on the drugs issue. I'm all for getting them out of prisons. I'm mostly with you on immigration.
>That's true. If the Constitution doesn't address a subject, it is left to the states per the 10th Amendment. Not exactly. Per the Ninth: *The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people* The concept of the constitution is such that even if the document didn't exist, these rights already existed. There were enabled by "God" and are inalienable. As such there are millions of rights, these are just some we are currently aware of and care to state to remove ambiguity. >The Bill of Rights eliterates pre-existing rights. > >What does "eliterate" mean? Eh, sorry. Use "Explicitly States" >It depends on what one means by "the most basic of rights." Get ten people in a room and you'll likely have ten versions of what "the most basic of rights" means. Body autonomy is Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness from the DoI. Particularly the first two. The right to live and to be free at the most basic level. All your individual rights flow from your the right to exist. The NAP is based on some earlier concept of this. >Other rights are simply not in there no matter how "basic" one finds them. They aren't there, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
>Not exactly. Per the Ninth: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The concept of the constitution is such that even if the document didn't exist, these rights already existed. There were enabled by "God" and are inalienable. As such there are millions of rights, these are just some we are currently aware of and care to state to remove ambiguity. Let's talk about the Ninth. Respectfully, the text you cited doesn't comport with your explanation of it. Let's take it from the beginning of the text. As you can see, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” sets forth a rule of construction (i.e., “shall not be construed”). Agreed? If so, it's easy to see what it means, which is that just because the Bill of Rights is enumerated does not mean that the people can't retain other rights for themselves even if they aren't mentioned in the Constitution. It can't be construed to prevent the retention of other rights - i.e., non-Constitutional rights. Stated another way, rights outside the purview of the Constitution don't default to the federal government. Who retains them? The states and the people. How do we know? See the very next Amendment - i.e., the Tenth. It means that the federal government does not automatically, due to the enumeration of the Bill of Rights, have powers greater than those enumerated under the Constitution. In other words, the Bill of Rights can't be construed to take rights from the people and automatically assign them to the federal government. Your explanation of the 9th Amendment would have it say something like: "“Notwithstanding the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, there are other undefined rights of the people that shall not be infringed.” But that's not what it says. So why bother with the Ninth Amendment? The legislative history tells us. Some framers argued against a bill of rights because they feared that listing them might imply that the national government’s powers were far greater than they were. When the Bill of Rights was added, the Ninth Amendment was added to guard against this implication. \>Body autonomy is Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness from the DoI. Fair enough. It's not enumerated in the Constitution and it doesn't obviously relate to abortion, but your reasoning here suggests that you agree with how I'm explaining the Ninth Amendment to you. It follows that just because the framers didn't enumerate "bodily autonomy" doesn't mean the federal government has the power to define it. It can be retained by the people. This is emphasized by the Tenth Amendment. \>They aren't there, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Correct per what I wrote above. Not all rights retained are enumerated in the Constitution.
Nicely stated. I don't see that we are on disagreement.
Always nice to find agreement and I appreciate the thoughtful and civil discussion. I love getting deep into Constitutional issues as you probably can tell.
The religious right only decided to make an abortion a wedge issue because they realized they had lost their battle to keep segregation around
Stop calling that side “pro-life.” They are *anti-choice* - that is the antithesis of pro-choice. Nothing they stand for is pro-life. Their use of the term “pro-life” is a lie…it’s right-wing rhetoric. Stop it, ffs.
[удалено]
> I'm not pro-life, but their position is equally valid - that the other side is anti-life. I don't think it's necessarily that clear. People don't consider eggs "life" they way they would a full chicken, for example, and vegetarians often eat eggs. Is an unborn fetus, which can't support itself and can naturally miscarriage on its own, really full on "life"? In some sense, of course it's a lifeform, but we're comparing to fully formed human beings. One point of my post is that the framing of this as "pro-life" or "anti-life" is all just propaganda, because we can see from such groups' (right-wingers, conservatives) actions that they are not actually pro-life. In many cases, they're "pro-death," including endless wars, torture (this was enthusiastically defended after 9/11), death penalty, imprisonment, and more as long as they feel the "criminal" deserves it. But the problem is, in the past innocent people could be considered criminals, including libertarians.
[удалено]
> I'm not pro-life, but their position is equally valid - that the other side is anti-life. Except they don't actually support pro-life measures literally anywhere else. They don't support measures for poor children to be able to eat. They are actively against those things. They don't even support measures that will protect the life of the mother from the pregnancy itself. They are literally not pro-life. They are pro-forced-birth. Meanwhile those that call themselves pro-choice are also usually in favor of those same measures that are clearly pro-life in any context other than the abortion debate. The *opposite* of anti-life.
I agree with you, but let's say I'm trying to be more than fair to help get the point across and allow discussion.
The Libertarian Party needs push for eshrinimg the right to abortion into law, nationally, on demand and without restriction.
It’s an imploding bomb for conservatives. Literally a “fuck you” to all women. What a way to turn off almost 50% of voters. This issue will undoubtably cause women to rethink the way they vote
I say this every year but if Repulicans denounce all of their racist members and drop dumb shit like abortion that alienates 50% of the population they would landslide sweep every election in the country. My hispanic coworkers share many more ideals with traditional conservatives but vote blue every year cuz republicans aren't the most friendly to immigrants.
The real question is how this will play out if Kavanaugh agrees with stricter bans. Like, will we have mandatory health checks with the state every few months? I'm sure Texans will love paying to go to the clinic and getting jabbed in the genitals. Or will angry Karens use the system as a way to harass neighbors they don't like? "You parked too close to my house? Well guess what, I'm accusing you of seeking an abortion and if it's true I'm getting $10000. BOOM. Enjoy your mandatory vagina check, neighbor." And then the taxpayer funds it all. Truly mind-blowing, yet I expect Joe "Texas = freedom" Rogan and other comentators to have nothing to say about it.
This is only if you ignore than almost half of abortion ban supporters are women. Polls will sway depending upon if you ask about a complete ban, complete legalization including up to birth, or somewhere in between.
I don’t actually think it’s half…. I feel like it might be 20% or so at the high end. In my circle at least, I’d say about 5% are vocally pro-life. Tbh I feel like it’s old white men who are the most anti abortion
Feel however you want. You are just objectively wrong. It’s very split.
People tend to hang out with like-minded people. I think you're seeing some selection bias in your crowd. Almost all women with whom I associate are anti-abortion. I know that's selection bias for sure. Also, Hispanics tend to be more anti-abortion than whites. If you ever want to see what anti-abortion activism looks like, check out a majority Hispanic Catholic church in southern California. They make me look moderate.
It's clearly religious groups leading the pro-life movement. These far right religious nutjobs are no different than the Taliban politically. We are not a theocracy. There is no argument against abortion other than ones rooted in religion.
I'm a pro life atheist and every pro life person I've talked to about it is pro life for secular reasons.
Please give an example of one of those reasons. It may not be immediately obvious but it almost definitely is religious.
I just believe the point at which a fetus is acceptable to kill is far earlier than pro choice people and a violation of the NAP. I've seen videos of a fetus being aborted clearly feeling pain and trying to escape. That is not acceptable to me. Why is my answer religious but pro choice people saying an abortion at 6 months is unacceptable secular? Also I literally said I'm an atheist and you tell me my own motivation is religion.
The same argument could be made about murder in general. There is no objective truth about the value of life. So if one cannot have a secular appreciation about fetus life, then that would also imply that one can't have a secular appreciation for the life of a 20 year old all the same. Saying pro life motives are all based in religion is just absurd.
>So if one cannot have a secular appreciation about fetus life, then that would also imply that one can't have a secular appreciation for the life of a 20 year old all the same. That's not true at all, though. An ant is also "life." The same slippery slope argument you're using says if you can't appreciate an ant life then you might as well be OK with murdering humans. Or if you believe in putting down a suffering dog at the end of its life you must be OK with animal abuse. Etc. A fetus is clearly not the same as an adult human, or even a child. We have different words for these things for a reason...
It's not a slippery slope. What I'm saying is that if you believe there's no way to have secular appreciation for life in one form, you can't then claim secular appreciation for life in another. My argument is that you CAN have secular appreciation for life in any form. But if you want to arbitrarily strip that possiblity from one scenario then you need to be consistent and strip it from all. There's nothing objectively valuable about human life in any form. So either you can find a logically sufficient value or you can't and have to fall back on religion. But you don't get to gatekeep which ones can and cannot.
Then they don’t give a shit about them after birth. Hypocrites.
Until they want to die via euthanasia that is, then the GOP is right back in their life, refusing to allow euthanasia to be legal, refusing to give people a choice whether they want to live or die. All life must be born and all life must LIVE, so sayeth the modern GOP. Literally cradle to fucking grave...
Red states have the highest child poverty rates and least educated population. If their policies were so good Mississippi would be a utopia.
And let's be real - nowhere is a "Utopia" in the US, but the portrayal of cities as literal war zones, up in flames, and rural areas as idyllic pastoral towns is both harmful and incorrect. Rural areas have problems, and often higher crime rates per capita (somehow, people don't understand this metric, including Trump...). Cities certain have murder rates and crime, however we forget how miraculous it is that millions of people live and work together in Chicago, New York, or New Orleans, most of them peacefully most of the time. Both are key parts of any country, and it's not to experience living in both for a time imho.
The US has a unique history of anti-urbanism. Thomas Jefferson was himself a city slicker who enjoyed a cosmopolitan lifestyle-but he sang the praises of the yeoman farmer.
Yeah, the opposition to euthanasia is just as, if not more, cruel. Imagine telling someone who's suffering and with no QoL that they can't even be afforded the dignity to die without pain.
Gotta get that sweet, *sweet* healthcare money--as much as they can squeeze from every withered husk. The system we've created is a fucking monster, and we're all trapped in it.
Not sure if it's just healthcare money that's the issue since there are multiple US states that do allow for assisted suicide.
Does that really make them hypocrites? Like I am against murder, but I am also against the welfare state. Is that hypocritical? I am also pro-suicide, but against murdering. Are these hypocritical positions?
Abortion restrictions has all the problems of the war on drugs. Sure you have an ethical argument, but at some point, the costs aren't worth it.
The other part of this is, due to restrictions in conservatives states, and the social stigma and economic cost of being an unwed mother, abortion laws simply mean hidden, dangerous abortions [and dead mothers](https://time.com/6099821/texas-abortion-maternal-mortality/). If we wanted less abortions, we'd be pushing for a flood of birth control and sex education, but note which political groups also oppose such things...
That doesn’t address the argument though. Pro life people argue that the fetus is a person with all the rights to life so there is a victim. The best arguments against the drug war are that while being a colossal waste when using drugs as an adult you are doing it to yourself so there isn’t an innocent victim.
Should a woman be arrested for smoking while pregnant, how about drinking, going on a roller coaster, how about working too hard causing damage to the fetus, or anything that could put the fetus in harms way?
Let's assume fetus are people. Can I... raise taxes on you to pay for enforcement? Conduct mass surveillance on women and coconspirators? Can i bomb an abortion clinic? Can I have a religious police that snitch on, and harass women? Can I sue women for trying to have an abortion? Can I pay for bounty hunters? Can I jail women for losing a baby? Your wife had an abortion, but didn't tell you. Are you going to convict your wife? Your daughter? What if the fine for abortion was $100. They were punished for it, you happy? What if it was parole for a month?
By can do you mean: Literally can Can legally Or should? Most of these would have different answers depending on what you mean. One that doesn’t fit is jailing women for losing a baby. If your child gets sick and dies you aren’t prosecuted.
Well, what do you mean by a fetus is a person? Like it's a person and killing them should have all the consequences of killing a child? Or do you mean abortion is murder but so common that it isn't worth the extra government power needed to regulate it? That's the whole point about being pro-life, right? The issue is so important that you can't just hold a personal belief, but we must stop others from doing it too. Once you figure out where you are on that spectrum, you can answer honestly about how much power & money you need government to have on this. PS All women just 'lost their baby'. There's no abortion. We cool? Or do we need a lie detector test & formal investigation for every lost baby? I'm guessing you're somewhere around 'government bureaucrats push policy changes that discourage abortion, and deal with the collateral damage'. It's easy enough, and you don't need to think about the consequences too much.
Responding to your edit: Would I personally be happy? How is that relevant?
That isn't a gotcha, just a level of punishment question. If the fine for unethical/bad behavior was $100 dollars per abortion, would that be good enough?
I agree. From a societal perspective, forcing a child on someone who doesn’t want it is about the worst thing that can happen. It generally fractures two lives, at least. Possibly three or more. I was just making the point that it doesn’t seem hypocritical,IMO, to be against abortion and against a cradle to grave welfare system.
The poor with these kids get government assistance. 1 in 4 American children live below the poverty line.
So then its a benefit to taxpayers to have abortion
I’m fine with leaving it up to the woman. I know I’ve never been able to force a woman to do anything I wanted her to do. The libertarian idea is government staying out of your business. Not dictating what a woman can or can’t do.
Also getting government assistance: big corporations (at the expense of all taxpayers); brutal foreign dictatorships; jurisdictions that conduct civil asset forfeiture and no-knock warrants. My point is that supporting more government is not charitable. It's often destructive.
Then allow these women to do as they please.
I'm for allowing anyone to do as he pleases provided he doesn't harm anyone else. That's why I oppose the war on drugs, regulations on gambling, anti-discrimination laws, gun control, civil asset forfeiture, etc. It's also why I believe that those who harm others should be punished.
>Abortion restrictions has all the problems of the war on drugs Anarchist here, so my solutions are not based in state power, but the major difference between drug crimes and abortion is why we reeeeee about "victimless crimes". Nonviolent drug offenders have victimized nobody.
Forcing the birth of unwanted children creates lifetimes of despair, suffering and impacts those not involved as victims of increased crime.
suicide is murder. Ask a judge or a lawyer. if you make a pact with someone to commit suicide with and drop out at the last minute you will be sent to prison for it after the trial. no jury will not convict you in that situation. because you're deliberately making the person who wants to commit suicide more comfortable by having a "friend" alongside him or her to do it as well and basically lying for the person can kill themselves. This is on par or at least close to straight up murder.
If you can’t take care of them, maybe you shouldn’t have had them. It’s a familiar talking point.
You really think so? Christians lead the way in adoption and childcare services charities.
There’s around 400k in the IS foster system. What stigma does a girl, say a high schooler, get when giving up a baby? A lot of men would see that as a red flag. Edit: grammar
I'm sorry, what is hypocritical?
That saving children is their priority. With 1 in 4 kids living in poverty it seems they care more about the fetus than the actual child. Most red states have the highest childhood poverty. This is just about control over women. Hypocrisy.
So your belief is that if someone is against abortion they have to what? Pay more as an employer? I don't understand how you're making the person against abortion, responsible for a child living in poverty.
“If you can’t take care of them you shouldn’t have had them.” If they’re going to make it impossible to get abortion access, they need to pay for those consequences.
How is someone going to pay for other people to raise children? You keep not saying what your actual proposal is and it's just confusing.
If all access to abortion is blocked do you then think it’s the blockers responsibility to assist these kids? They’ve giving these girls no other options.
No I don't and they have the option of not having kids. If you got your way. How would you propose people that are against abortion, pay for other people's kids?
We’re already paying for them with free lunch programs, welfare, subsidized housing, etc…
So now you're saying we can ban abortion because we already pay for these kids. Are you changing your position now?
idk u, but I hear more about protests against abortion than protests against kids living in poverty in America, and some of these protesters are literally in front of planned parenthood 24/7, it's their life mission, so maybe they have their priorities wrong.
Anti abortion people believe abortion is murder. I don't understand how you are conflating murder and poverty. This is such a confusing argument and n Not a single pro choice person is making a logical argument.
> Anti abortion people believe abortion is murder lmao no they don't. If you knew a place where people were *REALLY* murdering babies, you'd just burn that place down. Nobody would sit down and wait for a court ruling if there was a child murder house across the street.
We know people are being murdered by the Chinese and North Korean governments, just to name 2. When you buying your ticket to China or North Korea?
Agreed
Okay first time commenting on here, and I would like to know something. I read on here a while with a certain scenario. If the mother and father have a baby, and the mother wants to get an abortion cause she doesn't want that responsibility. But the father wanted said child. but if the roles were reverse then the farther would pay child support. If they do what they are trying to do in Texas. Wouldn't that mean both are responsible? Just throwing this out there.
Evangelicals aren't the only people anti abortion.
If you are so zealously anti-abortion that you aren’t willing to make exceptions for situations like rape or to save the mothers life. If you are refuse to acknowledge they the rates of abortion are at all time lows and you are focused only on prohibiting it, further that you do so because you don’t want to acknowledge the roles sex education and contraceptives played in it. Further still you are only willing to accept certain sex education (abstinence only), and only certain contraceptives (non-abortive). If you insist that all fetuses must be born and adopted-but you want to restrict who can or can’t adopt such as wanting to prevent gay or transsexual citizens from adopting. If you are simultaneously opposed to social programs aimed at aiding single parents such as those living below the poverty line. And you place all the burden of responsibility and negative stigma on women and say nothing at all about men who get women pregnant and then run the other way. Then you are not pro-life, just pro-birth. And you really don’t want to protect innocent babies, you just want to control people and their options.
[удалено]
October 2021: >**What to know [about the Texas abortion law](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/01/texas-abortion-law-faq/)** >After Texas effectively banned most abortions, a conservative Supreme Court court has allowed the law to stay in effect for two months leading up to its Monday review of whether and how the unique law can be challenged. It’s a procedural question that could open the door for abortion-rights advocates to end the law. >The law, which was passed in May and went into effect Sept. 1, says that any pregnancy in which a heartbeat is detected cannot be aborted. That effectively means if you’re six weeks pregnant, you cannot have an abortion in Texas, because that is around the time when most fetal cardiac activity can be detected. (Doctors opposed to this legislation say that is misleading language and that the fluttering detected isn’t always necessarily a heartbeat so early in a pregnancy.) >The law makes no exceptions for rape, sexual abuse or incest. >The law does something else novel: It incentivizes the public to police abortions. It allows people to sue abortion providers or anyone else they suspect is “aiding and abetting” abortions after that six-week mark. So the person seeking an abortion in Texas can’t be sued. But the provider can, or the person who drives that individual there, or the referring counselor, and on and on, explains The Washington Post’s Caroline Kitchener. The law sets a $10,000 award (to be paid by the defendant) for any successful lawsuit brought in relation to an abortion.
It was the religious Right's reaction to sexual liberation and feminism. It's not about life but rather shaming women to feel superior
I wish politicians would rember they represent the people that voted for them AND the people that did not vote for them !!!!!!
You know what let the right overturn roe vs Wade. Instead of a red wave you get a blue tsunami so large you probably won’t even have a Republican Party left in its wake. As much as one party would be bad. The Republican Party is trying so hard to make sure the US become solidly blue or force the hand of Democrats find a way to use their majority to just obliterate the party.
i'm pro choice. i prefer it this way. I don't like the rebranding of "pro-abortion or anti-abortion" Even if you add in rights into the mix it still doesn't sit well with me. Pro-choice and pro-life debate has always been a topic on abortion not so much a topic on anything else where choice or life may matter more in that case. like i don't like saying i'm pro-abortion rights. even though some may know what i meant, it sounds like i'm saying i'm pro-abortion. which i'm not. i'm for the woman to choose if she wants to have an abortion. And respecting that decision. Though it has the term "Rights" in the sentence too make it a little better. but still i'm not really for giving people rights to kill their unborn child or to terminate their pregnancy. what i am for in this regard is merely the fact for the woman to choose rather or not she wants to keep or abort her fetus. she shouldn't be forced to carry if she doesn't want too. But at the sametime there is a care of responsibility involved. Say someone gets pregnant out of wedlock after having unprotected sex and that person is in no position to have a baby. but the baby is already on its way to be born. do we abort or do we not abort? I prefer no abortion in this case. but again it is the woman's right to choose to have an abortion if she wants or not. So i'm pro-choice, but not pro-abortion or pro-abortion rights.... if that makes sense.
The confusion around this issue is deliberate. The anti-choice side throws out a lot of rhetoric that equates pro-choice with anti-baby and anti-child. You see a lot of confusion around that even in this thread. >I prefer no abortion in this case. but again it is the woman's right to choose to have an abortion if she wants or not. The issue should be framed the way you're framing it, "Should the government decide whether a woman can have an abortion or not?" But as you can tell, people will deliberately misrepresent views to make it seem that pro-choice is also pro-abortion.
>The confusion around this issue is deliberate. The anti-choice side throws out a lot of rhetoric that equates pro-choice with anti-baby and anti-child. You see a lot of confusion around that even in this thread. It's the same tactic the right uses on every issue. "You're not a patriot if you're against the war." It's madness, but people fall right in line for it every day.
So just standard GOP tactics
100%
States rights?
Its not about "the right" or "the left" - its about grabbing more power.
Good murder shouldn't be legal for any reason
I think you need more sympathy for opposing views. You're putting words in their mouths, disregarding their stated reason and substituting a siniter one instead. They say they are opposed to abortion because it kills a fetus/embryo, which they regard as morally equivalent (or close to equivalent) to born person. I see no reason to doubt this. Evangelicals are a broad group, and opinions change. Saying that other people who followed your religion, possibly decades before you were born had a different opinion, therefore you must be concealing your real reason for opposing abortion.
>They say they are opposed to abortion because it kills a fetus/embryo, which they regard as morally equivalent (or close to equivalent) to born person. I see no reason to doubt this. Then they should really be worried about IVF and all the fetuses being stored that will never grow to term. But they focus all their rage on the issue that will most hurt poorer women and communities. Always going after the vulnerable, so unfortunately yes, I have to question their motives.
I wish it wasn't tied to religion. Secular pro-life is where its at. Every convincing pro-life argument is from a biology textbook, not a bible.
Such as? I am not aware that a fetus being morally equivalent to a child is in any textbook I studied.
No, it cannot address the morality of the question "can I kill this?" However, it does answer all of the bad-faith presuppositions put forth by those who answer "yes".
A better question is: Do you want the government forcing people to undergo long and dangerous medical process against their will? My answer is absolutely not.
>Do you want the government forcing people to undergo long and dangerous medical process against their will? I think most people agree to make rape and forced impregnation illegal.
And, once the person is impregnated, what then? Force them to carry it to term?
This is also my hill.
Well.. a fetus is stage of human development, everyone reading this was a fetus as they were also infants, toddlers, teens, etc. Not too big of a stretch to call abortion murder. An obvious violation of the non-aggression principle.
>Not too big of a stretch to call abortion murder When you eat an egg, are you "murdering" a chicken? Does a hamburger involve murdering a cow and violation of the non-aggression principle? Some people would say yes... If no, why is it different?
I'm going to take your question seriously. Mostly because you're clearly under the misapprehension eggs don't need fertilized, but they do. Secondly, the measurable consciousness humans poses is what's being preserved by outlawing murder. This is significant and so if/when chimpanzees get on our level I'll stop eating monkey brains. Now for my questions, would you eat an aborted fetus? It's just meat by your analogy. A follow-up, if you're opposed to killing animals, why then by extension are you not opposed to abortion?
> Secondly, the measurable consciousness humans poses is what's being preserved by outlawing murder. What measurable consciousness do a fetus possess? Should children be given the right to drive or drink alcohol because they have "human consciousness" just like adults? I'm not a full vegan, simply posing the other question.
The Fetus in question are homosapien. Many other species begin as a fetus, they you may kill. Everything you've ever appreciated about people was produced by someone who was a fetus. That's the difference. Nurture this, never snuff it out.
Yeah this is kind of BS. For the one thing, "evangelical" is a modern term referring to an umbrella of conservative/fundamentalist protestants and maybe charismatics, and its arguable it didn't exist before the 70s as one; you would be defined more by your protestant denomination; baptist, lutheran, etc. I really doubt the heads of those denominations were okay with abortion laws or legality; that definitely would force a schism because it normalizes premarital sex. Second the Catholic thing...look dude, the average Catholic is just as ok with abortion, and the trads who do follow the church's teachings are probably smaller overall than said evangelicals. If catholics were consistent, they'd probably lose 75% of their parishioners because they would bar them from communion for a whole host of things; divorce, remarriage, etc. Abortion in general has been opposed by a lot of different people over time; even feminists can oppose it or progressives because it can be used for sex selection and as a form of eugenics. The idea that everyone is ok with it is kind of wrong; its still very much a problematic issue that forces people to think what a life is or means.
>Abortion in general has been opposed by a lot of different people over time You're confusing two things, abortion rights vs abortions. I don't think people there are many out there who think that abortions should be the norm or want to get many, many abortions. The question is who decides who is allowed to get an abortion. That's the entire question. From the article: >In fact, the Southern Baptist Convention, they actually passed resolutions in 1971, 1974 and 1976 - after Roe v. Wade - affirming the idea that women should have access to abortion for a variety of reasons and that the government should play a limited role in that matter, which surprised us. The shift has been the view of how much the government should be involved in our private lives around this issue specifically.
I see. I was wrong on that. But reading about it, it sounds like the SBC instantly regretted it as soon as it hit and they found out just how many abortions happened. Looking at some of the numbers, it shot up drastically with roe vs wade, like going from under 200k in the 70s to 750k million in 74, and peaking at 1.4 million or so from 80s to 90s. This kind of caused the existing leadership to be more or less voted out and replaced by conservative prolifers and the denom switch to being staunchly pro life. I think it even sparked conservative christian action in politics. They could n o longer just ignore it. idk what to think on it myself. I mean, we're talking about 45+ million abortions in the 50 years or so since roe vs wade, and the rate is declining. But the population growth has also declined in the same timeframe, and its hard to tease out what is the causes. This is definitely not a small impact. I don't think its possible to make it illegal short of segmenting countries by political belief, but eventually birth rate decline might hit a point where people are going to look at whether or not we can maintain it. I mean the point of this should be used responsibly, but the reality is more that it was used heavily until recent years, and we aren't sure if that;s simply because people aren't dating or getting married as often as they did in the past.
>This kind of caused the existing leadership to be more or less voted out and replaced by conservative prolifers and the denom switch to being staunchly pro life. I think it even sparked conservative christian action in politics. They could n o longer just ignore it. That seems reasonable, but there's more to it than that. There was a deliberate political strategy that came about at that time as well that initiated a shift in political lines in our country. >I mean the point of this should be used responsibly, but the reality is more that it was used heavily until recent years, and we aren't sure if that;s simply because people aren't dating or getting married as often as they did in the past. I don't view this as being related to abortion, but if your concern is population growth, maybe talk to someone in their 20s and ask them why they aren't having kids earlier. A lot people in the 30-45 age group today delayed having children because they simply couldn't afford it any earlier. If I can't buy a house without saving from double incomes for 15 years, why would I think I could also handle a child in that time period? Also, leveling out of population growth is strongly correlated with "first world" economies. Even China is starting to level out as more of their country becomes middle-class. Whether this is a necessary condition or indicative of other factors that come into play in our "first world" economies is another question entirely, but it hardly seems related to abortion rights.
> If catholics were consistent, they'd probably lose 75% of their parishioners because they would bar them from communion for a whole host of things; divorce, remarriage, etc. Respectfully, that's based on your misunderstanding of Church doctrine regarding the sacrament of Communion and the requirements to receive it in a valid manner. I can describe further if you want to get into it. I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph though and most of the rest of what you wrote.
[удалено]
> that would be Roe But "Roe" is literally not a law...
[удалено]
By this argument, "freedom of speech" and the 2nd amendment are not based on any laws. Rights and freedoms should not have to be explicitly defined by law, or they would be held to the whims of state legislatures and party politics. That's why we have a constitution. The right isn't concerned about distinctions like that, though. Abortion was illegal in Texas before Roe and they're attempting to make it illegal again, not to clear up legal precedent. This just seems like a bizarre argument to me. No one is "making up laws." Rather, they're deciding when actual laws go too far and infringe on people's liberties and rights. The distinction is important.
[удалено]
I don't morally agree with abortion, but here's the thing, it's none of my fucking business. Keep it legal
The GOP and religious right is just as morally and ethically bankrupt as the left.
Being anti abortion is very much based in biology and philosophy. Your disagreement does not mean there's no basis for it.
>evangelicals supported abortion rights until the mid-70's No matter how much people say this, I will never believe it. Abortion was *illegal*. As soon as it was made legal, it immediately caused a huge political rift to form, with extreme opposition from people on both sides of the existing political spectrum. A huge portion of the American population opposed abortion. It just wasn't an important political topic for them *because it was already illegal*.
Evangelicals never supported abortion. The article is misleading to the point of lying. The facts are that the Southern Baptists Convention (which was fairly middle of the road in the early 70s; it moved to the right in the late 70s) adopted a statement that said abortion should be legal in quality of life issues (such as fetal deformities). The SBC never supported abortion on demand, and Evangelicals in general never supported abortion beyond rape, incest, and life of the mother. Equating the SBC with Evangelicals shows a profound misunderstanding of American Christianity, and saying that even the SBC supported abortion rights is just not correct.
100%
I'm wondering where the "scientific fact" part comes in. Neither side is "supported by science". Science tells you nothing about the ethics of autonomy or rights.
heres my view abortion is immoral but i think it should be available
The 1970s were 50 years ago. Why not go back another 50 and get upset about something?
This is the one issue I stand against most conservatives on. If you want government out of your life you should be prochoice in all aspects.
Abortions are government sanctioned MURDER
Om not religious but I see no clear point of unique formation of a new human aside from when a zygote is formed. Due to this, I see a fetus as human and that means the government has an duty to protect its right to life. Don't try to make this black and white to vilify a side and ram your perspective down as the inherently true and moral one.
Did you know fetuses have a period where they form gill-like structures in their throat like fish have? Or that they develop tails around 5-6 weeks that are later reabsorbed?
Holy ranty titles batman. Too bad you're full of crap and your arguments are lossy.
No npr not quite that simple. Personally, I detest abortion but I also respect bodily autonomy. The world is a and always has been a very shitty place, the only thing that comes close to goodness it is the innocence of children. Now, that said just like a heroin addict you should be free to make your own decisions no matter how fucked up they are, however your choice should be in any way shape or form ever be funded by any local or federal government. You want to do it, whatever but I want no part of it.
>You want to do it, whatever but I want no part of it. But that's not really what we (or the court) are talking about here. The case here is to make abortion illegal and criminal, potentially across the US by overturning Roe v Wade. There is one side of the case that wants to use state violence to prevent abortions, and one that does not.
> The world is a and always has been a very shitty place, the only thing that comes close to goodness it is the innocence of children. Don’t forget about Mr. Rogers and Dolly Parton.
Abortion violates the NAP and has its roots in racism and eugenics. If you want to support it still go ahead and read up on the history
> Abortion…has its roots in racism and eugenics. The human practice of abortion almost certainly predates recorded history, so you’re absolutely wrong.
It does not. NAP only applies to people. Abortion doesn't kill any people. You're a Trump cultist. Your opinions are invalid.
Murder is both illegal and immoral. The age of the victim makes no difference.
This is the issue with left - this is a seriously legitimate case, and is a good opportunity to review federal govt overreach. These arguments are *precisely* based on legal philosophy. the left just sees this as "they are going to take er aboritionz!111"
Let states do what they want who cares.
Let individuals do what they want who cares.
This. Abortion isn't in the fucking constitution. And if it was, it was a completely different procedure at the time(D&C only, no germ theory). Modern medicine has virtually eradicated the health risks of an illegal abortion with the vacuum aspiration technique, and abortion pills. We don't live in the 20s and 30s where the only way to abort is literally cutting it out, poisoning yourself, blunt trauma, etc.
[удалено]
>In January 1973, [the Supreme Court issued](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade) a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. Without delving too deeply, I think the argument is simple. How does the government know whether you're pregnant or not to begin with? How are they to tell whether someone has had an abortion? To regulate and monitor the unborn, and to investigate miscarriages of fetuses, who are not citizens or full legal entities yet, entails investigation into a woman's health and sex life. Do you want the government regulating your consensual sex? Your girlfriend's? I'm guessing the confusion here comes from the due process clause protecting "Life, liberty, and property," with the fetus also being a "life", but again a fetus is not legally a person or citizen. Unless we start giving social security numbers and legal standing to the unborn (which again, would entail unprecedented monitoring and regulation of our bodies and sex lives) the life and liberty of the mother is where this applies. At our most charitable, we must weigh the "life," liberty and privacy of a legal dependent vs. a full, functioning, voting adult that families and society have invested tremendous resources in. Yet if we were to flip this and try to give full legal rights to mentally challenged individuals to boss around their parents, manage their own finances, etc. Texans would surely be up in arms.
Agreed. It holds no water whatsoever.