6 ms·

A terrible day in our country; individuals lose yet another freedom.

by bern4444 4y ago

waelkjlkj4t 4y ago
- voz_ 4y ago
  - waelkjlkj4t 4y ago
bufferoverflow 4y ago
- aaomidi 4y ago
  Okay then let's increase taxes by 3x and provide housing and shelter and a good life for every child. Wanna see how far this goes?
  - bufferoverflow 4y ago
    Where did the 3x figure come from?
- hedora 4y ago
  It’s not a few months of inconvenience, etc. A friend had an abortion in high school, and is now professionally successful and providing extremely well for her children. Should her aborted kid have been shunted off to adoptive parents, only to take up a stable household that an already born kid needed? Should she have kept the kid and raised it in an unstable household? Once 100% of children on this planet are well-cared for, your argument might make sense, but we are far, far away from that. Until then, we should prioritize kids over fetuses.
  - TrispusAttucks 4y ago
    Ancedotal. Survivorship bias. Nobody knows the future. Depression, regret and suicide can be outcomes of abortions. Did you hear the story about the girl who kept her baby and it saved her life? Being a mother gave her meaning that a career never could. That's to say nothing of the beautiful new life that was brought into the world.
    - notacoward 4y ago
      > Depression, regret and suicide can be outcomes of abortions. ...and they could never be the outcome of forcing someone to carry a baby to term? You're hypothetical-cherry-picking pretty hard here.
  - bufferoverflow 4y ago
    What's wrong with giving up a kid for adoption? I didn't understand the part of your argument about taking up a stable household. There's also a flaw in your logic. Should we kill unwanted people that are dependant on the state, for example? I also think using the word "fetus" is dishonest. There's not much of a difference between a fetus a day ago and a kid who was born next day. Yet somehow many people think killing one is perfectly fine, but killing the other is one of the worst crimes.
    - jen20 4y ago
      This argument would be less disingenuous if Republicans could espouse any policy which even purports to give a shit about babies once they leave the womb.
- Blammar 4y ago
  Why do you buy the argument it's a clump of cells until, say, five weeks? How do you rigorously define the dividing line for you? From my viewpoint, it's a fetus until it can survive outside the womb, which seems to be around 22-24 weeks with current tech. Prior to that point the mother's rights must be paramount. After that, it's a more difficult problem that really needs to be answered by society (and it isn't now.)
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    Yeah, that's never been a very good line to me, speaking as just a clump of cells myself.
    - Blammar 4y ago
      Well, through time and effort, I've upgraded my clump of cells to a bag of meat and minerals...
  - bufferoverflow 4y ago
    There are various lines we can draw that are more reasonable than killing at 9 months. Examples: 1) first heartbeat 2) first brain activity 3) first ability to feel pain 4) first ability to move
- digsy 4y ago
  Are you going to care for the unwanted babies that now get born? Are you going to pay for their upbringing? I suspect not but you will happily force others to do just that.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    It's never actually about the babies -- if it were, the same opponents to abortion would be advocating for pre-natal care, universal pre-school, etc.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    >Are you going to care for the unwanted babies that now get born? Are you going to pay for their upbringing? As an adopted child born prior to Roe v. Wade (and likely would not have been born post Roe v. Wade), I can assure you there are people who will gladly pay for the right to bring up and love a child. Also as an adoptive parent, post Roe v. Wade, I can assure you there are people who will gladly pay for the right to bring up and love a child. Also as a person who knows many people who cannot conceive children, including same sex couples, I can assure you that there are people who will gladly pay for the right to bring up and love a child. I’m pro-choice, but no offense, you need to drop that argument. It makes an assumption that other people share your attitude about raising children who are not biologically your own. Many of us out there who realize that simply having shared biology may be the least important thing between a parent and a child.
    - digsy 4y ago
      > It makes an assumption that other people share your attitude about raising children who are not biologically your own. Many of us out there who realize that simply having shared biology may be the least important thing between a parent and a child. No, it makes the argument that the people forcing women to give birth are not also willing to care for them. And you didnt say that you personally would adopt all of these forced births so you made my point.
      - kcplate 4y ago
drewcoo 4y ago
Freedoms should not be granted by courts. Nor should we rely on executive orders to do that - they can be overturned on a whim. We have legislatures to make freedoms the law, if they'd do their jobs for us. They can only seem to agree enough to give payouts to their donors, though. When they're not busy fighting vapid culture war issues.
- hedora 4y ago
  A large majority of the US voted against the presidents that appointed the conservatives on this court, and this court has been systematically stripping citizens of the right to vote and have their votes counted. Your argument is akin to a bully yelling “stop hurting yourself!” while they bang a kid’s head against the wall. The draft opinion uses similar logic when it argues the decision doesn’t subjugate women. They are “not without representation”, after all. Well great, by that logic, I guess the court is planning to go back to giving blacks 1/10th of a vote. “Not without representation”, after all.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    > A large majority of the US voted against the presidents that appointed the conservatives on this court. No offense, but why do people still think this matters? The US is not a democracy, it’s a republic of democratic states and this is by design. If you want the country to be a democracy, destroy or amend the constitution and remake the country.
    - dap 4y ago
      I don't understand your confusion. As you said, if people don't like something about the system, they can push for change. A first step in pushing for change is pointing out what sucks about the status quo, right? (If you're confused about why people might think the fact you quoted sucks, for one, it's easy to see it as an example of a tyranny by a minority that the constitution is intended to protect against.)
      - kcplate 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
TrispusAttucks 4y ago
Not from the prospective of the baby.
goldforever 4y ago

A terrible day in our country; individuals lose yet another freedom.

waelkjlkj4t 4y ago

voz_ 4y ago
- waelkjlkj4t 4y ago

bufferoverflow 4y ago

aaomidi 4y ago
Okay then let's increase taxes by 3x and provide housing and shelter and a good life for every child. Wanna see how far this goes?
- bufferoverflow 4y ago
  Where did the 3x figure come from?
hedora 4y ago
It’s not a few months of inconvenience, etc. A friend had an abortion in high school, and is now professionally successful and providing extremely well for her children. Should her aborted kid have been shunted off to adoptive parents, only to take up a stable household that an already born kid needed? Should she have kept the kid and raised it in an unstable household? Once 100% of children on this planet are well-cared for, your argument might make sense, but we are far, far away from that. Until then, we should prioritize kids over fetuses.
- TrispusAttucks 4y ago
  Ancedotal. Survivorship bias. Nobody knows the future. Depression, regret and suicide can be outcomes of abortions. Did you hear the story about the girl who kept her baby and it saved her life? Being a mother gave her meaning that a career never could. That's to say nothing of the beautiful new life that was brought into the world.
  - notacoward 4y ago
    > Depression, regret and suicide can be outcomes of abortions. ...and they could never be the outcome of forcing someone to carry a baby to term? You're hypothetical-cherry-picking pretty hard here.
- bufferoverflow 4y ago
  What's wrong with giving up a kid for adoption? I didn't understand the part of your argument about taking up a stable household. There's also a flaw in your logic. Should we kill unwanted people that are dependant on the state, for example? I also think using the word "fetus" is dishonest. There's not much of a difference between a fetus a day ago and a kid who was born next day. Yet somehow many people think killing one is perfectly fine, but killing the other is one of the worst crimes.
  - jen20 4y ago
    This argument would be less disingenuous if Republicans could espouse any policy which even purports to give a shit about babies once they leave the womb.
Blammar 4y ago
Why do you buy the argument it's a clump of cells until, say, five weeks? How do you rigorously define the dividing line for you? From my viewpoint, it's a fetus until it can survive outside the womb, which seems to be around 22-24 weeks with current tech. Prior to that point the mother's rights must be paramount. After that, it's a more difficult problem that really needs to be answered by society (and it isn't now.)
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  Yeah, that's never been a very good line to me, speaking as just a clump of cells myself.
  - Blammar 4y ago
    Well, through time and effort, I've upgraded my clump of cells to a bag of meat and minerals...
- bufferoverflow 4y ago
  There are various lines we can draw that are more reasonable than killing at 9 months. Examples: 1) first heartbeat 2) first brain activity 3) first ability to feel pain 4) first ability to move
digsy 4y ago
Are you going to care for the unwanted babies that now get born? Are you going to pay for their upbringing? I suspect not but you will happily force others to do just that.
- pstuart 4y ago
  It's never actually about the babies -- if it were, the same opponents to abortion would be advocating for pre-natal care, universal pre-school, etc.
- kcplate 4y ago
  >Are you going to care for the unwanted babies that now get born? Are you going to pay for their upbringing? As an adopted child born prior to Roe v. Wade (and likely would not have been born post Roe v. Wade), I can assure you there are people who will gladly pay for the right to bring up and love a child. Also as an adoptive parent, post Roe v. Wade, I can assure you there are people who will gladly pay for the right to bring up and love a child. Also as a person who knows many people who cannot conceive children, including same sex couples, I can assure you that there are people who will gladly pay for the right to bring up and love a child. I’m pro-choice, but no offense, you need to drop that argument. It makes an assumption that other people share your attitude about raising children who are not biologically your own. Many of us out there who realize that simply having shared biology may be the least important thing between a parent and a child.
  - digsy 4y ago
    > It makes an assumption that other people share your attitude about raising children who are not biologically your own. Many of us out there who realize that simply having shared biology may be the least important thing between a parent and a child. No, it makes the argument that the people forcing women to give birth are not also willing to care for them. And you didnt say that you personally would adopt all of these forced births so you made my point.
    - kcplate 4y ago

drewcoo 4y ago

Freedoms should not be granted by courts. Nor should we rely on executive orders to do that - they can be overturned on a whim. We have legislatures to make freedoms the law, if they'd do their jobs for us. They can only seem to agree enough to give payouts to their donors, though. When they're not busy fighting vapid culture war issues.

hedora 4y ago
A large majority of the US voted against the presidents that appointed the conservatives on this court, and this court has been systematically stripping citizens of the right to vote and have their votes counted. Your argument is akin to a bully yelling “stop hurting yourself!” while they bang a kid’s head against the wall. The draft opinion uses similar logic when it argues the decision doesn’t subjugate women. They are “not without representation”, after all. Well great, by that logic, I guess the court is planning to go back to giving blacks 1/10th of a vote. “Not without representation”, after all.
- kcplate 4y ago
  > A large majority of the US voted against the presidents that appointed the conservatives on this court. No offense, but why do people still think this matters? The US is not a democracy, it’s a republic of democratic states and this is by design. If you want the country to be a democracy, destroy or amend the constitution and remake the country.
  - dap 4y ago
    I don't understand your confusion. As you said, if people don't like something about the system, they can push for change. A first step in pushing for change is pointing out what sucks about the status quo, right? (If you're confused about why people might think the fact you quoted sucks, for one, it's easy to see it as an example of a tyranny by a minority that the constitution is intended to protect against.)
    - kcplate 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

TrispusAttucks 4y ago

Not from the prospective of the baby.

goldforever 4y ago