Overturning Roe V Wade

[Horu]

Does anyone else feel that the overturning of Roe V Wade has been taken a little too far? This isn't a pro-life vs pro-choice anymore. This is literally being carried into women not having a choice at all and I really don't like it. Yes, I am pro-life, assuming that conception was the result of the woman's choices. I'm also pro-choice when conception is the result of something completely out of woman's control. I am also pro-necessity when it comes to medical/emergency situations. But even worse, states are banning the use of birth control and condoms as a direct result of Roe V Wade being overturned.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well I'm curious here

 

1) is an unborn child human

2) should said human be protected

if yes

3) how do the sins of the father (or mother) detract from he child's humanity

 

The mother's life issue is separate 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

4 minutes ago, Ryusei the Morning Star said:

Well I'm curious here

 

1) is an unborn child human

2) should said human be protected

if yes

3) how do the sins of the father (or mother) detract from he child's humanity

 

The mother's life issue is separate 

and if no?

[Horu]

2 hours ago, Ryusei the Morning Star said:

Well I'm curious here

 

1) is an unborn child human

2) should said human be protected

if yes

3) how do the sins of the father (or mother) detract from he child's humanity

 

The mother's life issue is separate 

1) Yes

2) Yes

3) I explained my stance above. If conception is a result of consent, then I maintain the pro-life stance (This is intended to protect the unborn child). If consent is not a factor, I am pro-choice (this would protect the mother/father under the Roe V Wade law due to the circumstances of the case). I'm sure medical/emergency needs no explaination since it falls under necessity and is meant to protect the doctor.

[Phantom Roxas]

8 hours ago, Horu said:

Does anyone else feel that the overturning of Roe V Wade has been taken a little too far? This isn't a pro-life vs pro-choice anymore. This is literally being carried into women not having a choice at all and I really don't like it. Yes, I am pro-life, assuming that conception was the result of the woman's choices. I'm also pro-choice when conception is the result of something completely out of woman's control. I am also pro-necessity when it comes to medical/emergency situations. But even worse, states are banning the use of birth control and condoms as a direct result of Roe V Wade being overturned.

I agree with you that it's being taken too far, and I'm emphasizing the bolded part because that's what this comes down to for me. I don't believe that the SCOTUS majority honestly values life. The goal is to control women, and Republicans are hiding behind a veil of "pro-life" to make it so that their need for control appears to have a moral basis. Banning birth control and condoms just removes more options for women.

Alito and Barrett describing some mythical "domestic supply of infants" shows that all they can think is that women exist only to serve as baby factories, where children are nothing more than products. Mind you, the GOP relies on not actually doing anything to support children once they are born, since that would require doing for children, as opposed to using them as a means to control women.

[Horu]

4 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

I agree with you that it's being taken too far, and I'm emphasizing the bolded part because that's what this comes down to for me. I don't believe that the SCOTUS majority honestly values life. The goal is to control women, and Republicans are hiding behind a veil of "pro-life" to make it so that their need for control appears to have a moral basis. Banning birth control and condoms just removes more options for women.

Alito and Barrett describing some mythical "domestic supply of infants" shows that all they can think is that women exist only to serve as baby factories, where children are nothing more than products. Mind you, the GOP relies on not actually doing anything to support children once they are born, since that would require doing for children, as opposed to using them as a means to control women.

I honestly view these laws as a means to control. And Yes, since Roe V Wade has been overturned, Arizona has banned abortion, plan b and contraceptives altogether. Mind you, Texas' own abortion law doesn't affect a woman until a heartbeat can be detected. Tennessee's abortion law only affects women with partners. So just giving an idea about the extremes that some states are pushing. So yeah, you can imagine how much it bothered me when my own home state (Arizona) invoked laws more extreme than Texas' Heartbeat Law literally the day after Roe V Wade was overturned.

[Phantom Roxas]

While I think the ruling is currently a foregone conclusion, keep in mind that Roe v Wade actually hasn't been overturned yet. A draft decision for it leaked, but the ruling itself has not been made official. If anything, that makes Arizona's law more extreme, because they aren't even reacting to SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade.

[Horu]

5 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

While I think the ruling is currently a foregone conclusion, keep in mind that Roe v Wade actually hasn't been overturned yet. A draft decision for it leaked, but the ruling itself has not been made official. If anything, that makes Arizona's law more extreme, because they aren't even reacting to SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade.

Damn. Then again, I lived there and the laws in general are rather specific. So yeah, I can see Doug signing off on these laws as soon as they hit his desk and not even waiting for a final decision from Roe V Wade. But I noticed a full ban on contraception, which if I'm not mistaken, also infringes on men's reproductive rights and creates more issues. Now bear in mind that Arizona's legal system is horribly rigged to the point that the family courts will always side with the mother (regardless of how she got that baby or how fit she is to actually be a mother) and the father will have to pay child support or the state will start taking away his resources (driver's license, bank account, etc). So Arizona's new law effectively hurts good women while basically granting the crazy ones a free ride.

 

Edit: This isn't to say that I don't understand why Arizona opted for a no contraception law because I understand 100%. Prostitution is a huge problem in the state. So they figure by effectively taking away safe sex, they'll eliminate, if not, reduce prostitution. Another issue is teen pregnancy (fun fact: teens don't give two shits) and they think by preventing schools from handing out condoms and birth control, they'll likely eliminate or reduce that as well.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

On 5/10/2022 at 1:08 AM, TheImmaculateDreadLordCowCow said:

and if no?

I guess it depends as to what you're saying No to?

I just have issues with "pro-life" people saying rape should be an exception. It's either a human life or not. Some questions in life are unpleasant when taken to their logical conclusion, but I do not fault a child for the sins of its father

[Horu]

20 hours ago, Ryusei the Morning Star said:

I guess it depends as to what you're saying No to?

I just have issues with "pro-life" people saying rape should be an exception. It's either a human life or not. Some questions in life are unpleasant when taken to their logical conclusion, but I do not fault a child for the sins of its father

This is a question of the mother's moral code. Remember,  the situation in question was not the mother's choice. So now comes another moral question: Is it fair to also force a woman to carry a child she conceived due to circutances that were out of her control?

[cr47t]

On 5/10/2022 at 2:03 AM, Ryusei the Morning Star said:

3) how do the sins of the father (or mother) detract from he child's humanity

 

The mother's life issue is separate 

On 5/14/2022 at 1:29 AM, Ryusei the Morning Star said:

I guess it depends as to what you're saying No to?

[ellipsis]

 ...I do not fault a child for the sins of its father

wtf do you mean by sins of the father

generally i think horu's position is sensible, and if i was involved in a situation where abortion was relevant that would be the stance i would take on that specific situation. that being said i dont think the government's lawmakers and interpreters should be able to decide a course of action in family matters like this, except in the case of abuse or otherwise knowingly inflicted harm, because often lawmakers are more concerned with their own agendas than finding the best outcome for the people already involved.

for example, if a pregnant woman is in an abusive relationship, where the abuser is the 'father', and having a baby could prevent the woman further from trying to leave the relationship and possibly put her (the mothers) life in danger from the hands of the abuser, what would any of you say about abortion in that case? any way you put it, in this case the fetus is not responsible for the 'sins of the father' (which could vary depending on the case), but there is still a question to be asked.

we can debate all day about whether abortion falls under the category of abuse/knowingly inflicted harm, but that's beside my point, and my point is that people (including winter here, possibly, and of course various lawmakers and activists) have been long using the 'abortion is murder/not murder' 'flattening' of the debate to, at best, weasel themselves out of staring down the depths of the way abortion can combine with other issues to create truly nasty conditions, and at worst to bring out ugly and dangerous behavior in them and/or others. i am not claiming to have to the answer to questions like the above, so don't claim that i do because i don't, but winter has some explaining to do on what exactly he's trying to say. (this is not the first time either)

(btw, sorry i'm late)

[Horu]

On 6/17/2022 at 4:23 PM, cr47t said:

wtf do you mean by sins of the father

This isn't solely a "sins of the father" argument.

On 6/17/2022 at 4:23 PM, cr47t said:

generally i think horu's position is sensible, and if i was involved in a situation where abortion was relevant that would be the stance i would take on that specific situation. that being said i dont think the government's lawmakers and interpreters should be able to decide a course of action in family matters like this, except in the case of abuse or otherwise knowingly inflicted harm, because often lawmakers are more concerned with their own agendas than finding the best outcome for the people already involved.

My stance isn't changing. However, I would like to add that I understand fully that Roe V Wade has been obscenely abused since it was passed. I'm suggesting something that takes away the "I'm getting an abortion cause I don't wanna take responsibility for my actions" claus. That being said, this bill could potentially be used to protect men as well.

On 6/17/2022 at 4:23 PM, cr47t said:

for example, if a pregnant woman is in an abusive relationship, where the abuser is the 'father', and having a baby could prevent the woman further from trying to leave the relationship and possibly put her (the mothers) life in danger from the hands of the abuser, what would any of you say about abortion in that case? any way you put it, in this case the fetus is not responsible for the 'sins of the father' (which could vary depending on the case), but there is still a question to be asked.

This is a valid example.

On 6/17/2022 at 4:23 PM, cr47t said:

we can debate all day about whether abortion falls under the category of abuse/knowingly inflicted harm, but that's beside my point, and my point is that people (including winter here, possibly, and of course various lawmakers and activists) have been long using the 'abortion is murder/not murder' 'flattening' of the debate to, at best, weasel themselves out of staring down the depths of the way abortion can combine with other issues to create truly nasty conditions, and at worst to bring out ugly and dangerous behavior in them and/or others. i am not claiming to have to the answer to questions like the above, so don't claim that i do because i don't, but winter has some explaining to do on what exactly he's trying to say. (this is not the first time either)

(btw, sorry i'm late)

Also, welcome to the discussion.

[cr47t]

1 hour ago, Horu said:

(1) This isn't solely a "sins of the father" argument.

(2) My stance isn't changing. However, I would like to add that I understand fully that Roe V Wade has been obscenely abused since it was passed. I'm suggesting something that takes away the "I'm getting an abortion cause I don't wanna take responsibility for my actions" claus. That being said, this bill could potentially be used to protect men as well.

1 - I think I must have missed something that wasn't outright said, which is something I have a bit of a problem with detecting at times, especially when I'm not all caught up. In my defense, I've been more focused on A) the sudden and in-sync shifting of the far-right's focus from outlawing abortion immediately to de-emancipating trans people, the shift happened around the time the roe reversal leaked and may also be a distraction from B) the incoming phase of the J6 fallout. in any case there seems to be something I haven't caught onto.

2 - I think we miscommunicated; I never meant to suggest your stance would change, as you seem very firm in it; I was just expressing my own opinions and how I think your standard is sensible. the part after that was about my opposition (in non-manipulative situations) of governmental interference, not about your opinion being 'wrong' b/c IDK where you stand on that specific part of it. in any case sorry if the juxtaposition made it confusing.

also Winter if you are reading this, and have anything more to say, please say it because we (me+horu & you) clearly aren't on the same page, and I want to be sure you aren't pulling bad faith arguments our of your ass again.

[Horu]

1 hour ago, cr47t said:

1 - I think I must have missed something that wasn't outright said, which is something I have a bit of a problem with detecting at times, especially when I'm not all caught up. In my defense, I've been more focused on A) the sudden and in-sync shifting of the far-right's focus from outlawing abortion immediately to de-emancipating trans people, the shift happened around the time the roe reversal leaked and may also be a distraction from B) the incoming phase of the J6 fallout. in any case there seems to be something I haven't caught onto.

I was referring to the "sins of the father" thing. Mostly because this line doesn't exactly apply anymore.

1 hour ago, cr47t said:

2 - I think we miscommunicated; I never meant to suggest your stance would change, as you seem very firm in it; I was just expressing my own opinions and how I think your standard is sensible. the part after that was about my opposition (in non-manipulative situations) of governmental interference, not about your opinion being 'wrong' b/c IDK where you stand on that specific part of it. in any case sorry if the juxtaposition made it confusing.

I'm more about finding a solution that can appease both sides as opposed to creating a war.

1 hour ago, cr47t said:

also Winter if you are reading this, and have anything more to say, please say it because we (me+horu & you) clearly aren't on the same page, and I want to be sure you aren't pulling bad faith arguments our of your ass again.

On this note, I have absolutely no faith either side will come to a peaceful resolution. But it would be nice to come up with a hypothetical solution that both sides can agree on.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Horu man you gotta stop speaking for other people, Winter can answer the question about his own wording better than you can.

[Horu]

19 hours ago, TheImmaculateDreadLordCowCow said:

Horu man you gotta stop speaking for other people, Winter can answer the question about his own wording better than you can.

I'm not exactly answering for Winter. I'm more giving my thoughts. But yeah, it'd be nice if Winter would jump in and share his thoughts as well.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

On 6/17/2022 at 4:23 PM, cr47t said:

wtf do you mean by sins of the father

Very simple, either the father raping the mother or the mother raping the father is a horrific crime

But the unborn child had no hand in said crime, so death being dealt to that child strike me as not correct

[Horu]

2 hours ago, Ryusei the Morning Star said:

Very simple, either the father raping the mother or the mother raping the father is a horrific crime

But the unborn child had no hand in said crime, so death being dealt to that child strike me as not correct

The problem with this argument is that this was the entire premise behind Roe v Wade. But statistically, the bill was downright abused by people that 1) did not want children, 2) women who wanted to manipulate their partners, 3) parents trying to protect their image and forcing their daughters to get abortions.

Sadly, women in the US will stray from the legal and medical arguments that fully justify the act to downright using medical costs as an excuse when every woman in this country is instantly approved for medical insurance provided by the state assuming she can show proof of pregnancy. I've shot this horse so many times that this argument tells me how stupid someone is to even mention it.

[cr47t]

23 hours ago, Ryusei the Morning Star said:

Very simple, either the father raping the mother or the mother raping the father is a horrific crime

But the unborn child had no hand in said crime, so death being dealt to that child strike me as not correct

first off wtf is meant by "either"? although some cases are worse than others depending on the victim's circumstances, even the "least" awful rape is unacceptable no matter who does it to who.

this ties into part 2. theoretically under the new system, if the circumstances (notably the laws in the state it happens in) line up, a male rapist could inflict it onto a woman anticipating a "reward" in the form of offspring. this may have already have happened in the ohio-indiana case (here's a recap if you need one) and others like it that may have happened since but havent been reported. what to do then?

this ties into part 3 of my post which ties back to this earlier post:

On 6/17/2022 at 5:23 PM, cr47t said:

...my point is that people (including winter here, possibly, and of course various lawmakers and activists) have been long using the 'abortion is murder/not murder' 'flattening' of the debate to, at best, [#1:] weasel themselves out of staring down the depths of the way abortion can combine with other issues to create truly nasty conditions, and at worst [#2:] to bring out ugly and dangerous behavior in them and/or others. ...

although i'm thankful you haven't shown any adherence (on YCM, yet - i sincerely hope not elsewhere either) to what's described in quote point 2, you're still wallowing in excusing yourself from intertwined issue problems per quote point 1. you really want to drive home the murder point even though, as i pointed out in the earlier post and as we've seen from the ohio-indiana case, it's now possible for situations to occur that are unmistakeably worse than a person murdering another person (baby or not) because the former didn't the latter - and while those situations anchored tthe antiroe position pre-[whatever the overturning case is called], now that the rabbit is out of the hat, things are going to get worse before they get better, and it probably won't even get better if you keep your flag planted in this black-and-white world you've put on display for us so far

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Either as in it’s perfectly possible for a female to rape a male and become pregnant 

 

obviously in that case the man cannot force her to have an abortion despite the child being created against his will 

 

its lunacy to punish a third party with death for the actions of someone else 

 

not a hard concept 

[Horu]

On 7/22/2022 at 1:58 AM, Ryusei the Morning Star said:

Either as in it’s perfectly possible for a female to rape a male and become pregnant 

 

obviously in that case the man cannot force her to have an abortion despite the child being created against his will 

 

its lunacy to punish a third party with death for the actions of someone else 

 

not a hard concept 

I fully understand this. But consider the case of a 28yr old woman raping a 14yr old boy and getting pregnant then collecting child support from him. Would this be considered justice?

[Dad]

On 7/22/2022 at 1:58 AM, Ryusei the Morning Star said:

 

its lunacy to punish a third party with death for the actions of someone else 

 

 

Oh word? Chelsea Becker was prosecuted for murder after having a stillborn child.

On 7/23/2022 at 7:42 AM, Horu said:

I fully understand this. But consider the case of a 28yr old woman raping a 14yr old boy and getting pregnant then collecting child support from him. Would this be considered justice?

Not unless she gets thrown in jail for fifty+ years.

 

[Horu]

2 hours ago, Dad said:

Oh word? Chelsea Becker was prosecuted for murder after having a stillborn child.

This bit is just depressing.

2 hours ago, Dad said:

Not unless she gets thrown in jail for fifty+ years.

 

She was a teacher. She served 6 months and still got to keep her job. Now she's collecting child support from the boy she groomed and raped.

[cr47t]

9 minutes ago, Horu said:

She was a teacher. She served 6 months and still got to keep her job. Now she's collecting child support from the boy she groomed and raped.

[emphasis added]

wait, this really happened? (if so, a reputable article that doesn't contain name or photo of the aforementioned p*do would be most helpful to cite IMO. no immortalization, that is all im asking here)

in the meantime idaho supreme court declines to pause said state's new trigger laws, thought the news would fit in this thread

[Horu]

2 hours ago, cr47t said:

wait, this really happened? (if so, a reputable article that doesn't contain name or photo of the aforementioned p*do would be most helpful to cite IMO. no immortalization, that is all im asking here)

in the meantime idaho supreme court declines to pause said state's new trigger laws, thought the news would fit in this thread

Sure. I'll see if I can find the article from when it happened and the CS case. 

 

Also, by "trigger laws", you are implying their pew pew laws, right?