3 ms·

Because once you start claiming that certain subsets of abortions are bad, you start to open up inconvenient conversations that erode Roe v Wade and then it wou

Because once you start claiming that certain subsets of abortions are bad, you start to open up inconvenient conversations that erode Roe v Wade and then it would be an actual debate instead of a foregone conclusion for the left. I’m not trying to incite anything here though. I’m quite certain that the author genuinely made a mistake including it in their list.

mumblemumble 5y ago
The wording "abortion specifically against women is bad" is ambiguous. It could be taken to mean either, "aborting girls is bad, and aborting boys is not bad," or, "selectively aborting girls but not boys is bad." The discussion thus far is consistent with the possibility that each participant has taken the phrase to mean something different.
lovich 5y ago
I don’t think this erodes roe v wade. I don’t think “choosing to abort your pregnancy specifically because it was a girl is bad” rises beyond social condemnation and needs to be legislated. There seems to be some sort of unspoken belief among anti abortion proponents that roe v wade and pro choice beliefs are built on the flimsiest of legal arguments and if we even squint at it wrong the whole thing will come tumbling down. > I’m not trying to incite anything here though. >… then it would be an actual debate instead of a foregone conclusion for the left. I find it hard to rectify those two statements in the same discussion much less the same comment Edit: added the word “specifically” to the second sentence
- jimbob45 5y ago
  How could you possibly legislate away such a thing though? Outside of a total ban? To my knowledge, not even the totalitarian government of China has successfully been able to legislate it away.
  - lovich 5y ago
    I think you need to reread my comment. I specified that I don’t think this a something bad enough to need legislation. Social condemnation is enough

mumblemumble 5y ago

The wording "abortion specifically against women is bad" is ambiguous. It could be taken to mean either, "aborting girls is bad, and aborting boys is not bad," or, "selectively aborting girls but not boys is bad." The discussion thus far is consistent with the possibility that each participant has taken the phrase to mean something different.

lovich 5y ago

I don’t think this erodes roe v wade. I don’t think “choosing to abort your pregnancy specifically because it was a girl is bad” rises beyond social condemnation and needs to be legislated. There seems to be some sort of unspoken belief among anti abortion proponents that roe v wade and pro choice beliefs are built on the flimsiest of legal arguments and if we even squint at it wrong the whole thing will come tumbling down. > I’m not trying to incite anything here though. >… then it would be an actual debate instead of a foregone conclusion for the left. I find it hard to rectify those two statements in the same discussion much less the same comment Edit: added the word “specifically” to the second sentence

jimbob45 5y ago
How could you possibly legislate away such a thing though? Outside of a total ban? To my knowledge, not even the totalitarian government of China has successfully been able to legislate it away.
- lovich 5y ago
  I think you need to reread my comment. I specified that I don’t think this a something bad enough to need legislation. Social condemnation is enough