Roe v. Wade Officially Overturned by SCOTUS

↩  fleshly if you had to choose between giving a homeless child a house or saving a child who would be shot to death, which one would you choose?

↩  enchy in this case it's more like a choice between giving a homeless child a house or saving a child from being shot just so they can die from something else

Quote

↩  enchy if a person had consensual sex its not rape to make them have the baby that was born from their own free decision

Content warning, talking a lot about sex here but given the topic it's rather hard to avoid and this is something that needs said.

It is 2022 lad.. children aren't the only reason to do the deed. It's incredibly backwards to think that a couple who don't want any children should never ever do the deed.

Sex is about having an intimate connection with ones partner. It's not just any intimste connection either.. it's the ultimate intimate connection, and we don't crave it because we envision ourselves changing the nappy of a wailing baby at 4am. We crave it because it feels good... For a genuine biological reason. A couple should be allowed to make love to each other without worrying about a $275,000 child en route.

The elephant in the room here is moreso about how we need better education for things like this in schools. Plenty of accidental pregnancies could be avoided if we are taught better about how to avoid them. Many people still think the "pull-out method" is a viable contraceptive to name one very common example. We don't need to ban abortions, we need to educate people better on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies as best as possible.. and always remember contraceptives are never 100% effective.

Quote

↩  enchy it is alive since it can grow and it is independent because it has its own unique dna.

A foetus, up until it is viable, is biologically a parasite. It relies entirely on the mother for around 24 weeks, and if born prior to that time has an extremely low chance of survival. If the foetus cannot survive without the nutrients and warmth from the pregnant woman's body, I cannot see why it should be called independent.

Worth noting all gametes (sperm and egg cells) multiply by meiosis, which inherently means that every single one of them has unique DNA, as that's where the foetus' uniqueness comes from. If you're branding an independent organism simply as having genetic variation, then every time a woman has her period she's committing murder. Don't think I need to go into details for the men... But I'm sure the blanks can be filled in.

Quote

↩  enchy abortion does ruin lives, it ruins the life of the baby, and it can ruin the life of the mother who regrets it, and ruin the life of the father who never had a choice whether or not his child would ever be born

Every month, a woman flushes one of her eggs down the toilet. We don't ruin our lives every month because a unique potential child is now gone. We have 400 of those eggs. And when a guy does his thing, millions of potential children are killed. When a couple has a child, I don't see them mourning the life ruining loss of the millions of sperm who didn't make it and dozens of eggs who were never fertilised.

↩  enchy so if someone gets raped they shouldnt be allowed to have an abortion? or if the baby would lead to death or major health issues?

↩  taah rape no. a baby being born from rape isnt any less human. for life of the mother, sure. i dont really lean either way on that

Quote

↩  erin t is 2022 lad.. children aren’t the only reason to do the deed. It’s incredibly backwards to think that a couple who don’t want any children should never ever do the deed.

im not saying that, i just saying if they became pregnant it would be by their own choice. every choice has risks, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt make those choices. im not saying never have sex, im just saying its wrong to say a pregnancy is “forced” when it was caused by a free choice.

Quote

↩  erin A foetus, up until it is viable, is biologically a parasite. It relies entirely on the mother for around 24 weeks, and if born prior to that time has an extremely low chance of survival. If the foetus cannot survive without the nutrients and warmth from the pregnant woman’s body, I cannot see why it should be called independent.

not a parasite since theyre the same species. people who need medical equipment like ventilators or life support cant live on their own, but that doesnt mean they arent independent humans.

Quote

↩  erin Every month, a woman flushes one of her eggs down the toilet. We don’t ruin our lives every month because a unique potential child is now gone. We have 400 of those eggs. And when a guy does his thing, millions of potential children are killed. When a couple has a child, I don’t see them mourning the life ruining loss of the millions of sperm who didn’t make it and dozens of eggs who were never fertilised.

because those sperm and egg cells arent independent humans. they havent created a genetically unique human

↩  fleshly not really but then let me redo the question: the child will be homeless after being saved from being shot. either one child gets a house and the other dies, or ones life is saved but they are both homeless

you are disgusting if you think that you have a say on what women do with their bodies and i’m embarrassed for you

if a 14 year old girl wants to adopt a child they can’t because they aren’t financially stable etc, but if a 14 year old girl wants to have an abortion who isn’t financially stable they can’t have one

this is such a step backwards and it is so heartbreaking for anyone who can get pregnant

Quote

↩  enchy i just saying if they became pregnant it would be by their own choice

Unless someone's decided "I want to get pregnant" they are not choosing to get pregnant. In fact, if they are using any contraception method whatsoever, they are making a choice not to get pregnant.

Just because there are adverse risks does not mean a choice has been made to accept them.

Quote

↩  enchy not a parasite since theyre the same species

Just plain wrong. Intraspecies parasitism does exist. You can find other examples too, pregnancy is obviously a notable one.

Quote

↩  enchy because those sperm and egg cells arent independent humans. they havent created a genetically unique human

Neither has the foetus.. or the zygote, the latter of which is literally just the fertilised sperm and egg together. Two cells. It's not a genetically unique and independent human being until it is viable.

Quote

↩  enchy rape no. a baby being born from rape isnt any less human

This is one of the most horrible things I've ever read.. rape completely annihilates the mental health of the victim. It is one of the most physically and emotionally traumatic crimes anyone can experience. 31% of rape victims have been formally diagnosed with PTSD, 11% are still suffering from it (when assessment was taken.) There are many other mental health concerns, such as severe depression, but one thing I want to highlight particularly on is that when they were assessed, 33% of victims said they felt suicidal. One third. (Source).

These people did not do anything wrong. They were violently violated and invalidated by a villainous piece of human trash. The trauma from an event like that already can ruin a woman's mental health and the shockwaves may ruin her life.

And now she's pregnant. Not just pregnant, but pregnant with a foetus containing DNA, half of which came from the person who ruined her fucking life. She doesn't want it for obvious reasons, but she can't get an abortion because of this new law.. and now she has to endure a very uncomfortable 9 month pregnancy on top of everything else she's experiencing. A constant reminder of the extreme trauma she's experienced growing inside of her.

It's unjustifiable.

Quote

↩  enchy rape no. a baby being born from rape isnt any less human. for life of the mother, sure. i dont really lean either way on that

yes i love to have the child of the bloke that violated me and go through 9 months of hell just to put this unwanted child up for adoption who wont have a happy life

↩  burger

I'm speaking of the consequences you mention yourself.

Quote

↩  burger Those that argue it is immoral to protect abortion must acknowledge the consequences if abortion loses federal protection. More kids will be abandoned, women who may feel pressured to get an abortion in an unsafe environment risk death or serious injury, kids grow up in homes not able to financially or emotionally support them. I believe we all have the goal to prevent the loss of life no matter which side you are on and that is why abortion is not something we can morally prohibit no matter how much you disagree with it.

Quote

↩  burger More kids will be abandoned

Not to mention the orphanages that will get more kids then it already has and they would have to spend more of the little money that they have already to be able to support more kids because of this law.

Quote

↩ @'Ryan' Cost of living is expensive
Raising a child is very expensive
Contraception is expensive
Contraception fails
Humans are horrible and rape is a thing
People change their mind

He just said that he doesn't view economic hardship as a reason not to ban abortion - if we're going to value all human life equally (fetus or not), same logic could be used to say that we should kill poor people, because they suffer. If you cannot support a child and you're forced to bear it, then there are still options on the table (e.g. adoption / foster families).

If you argue that contraception is expensive, then I think it would be more reasonable to support a cheaper or universal alternative supported via state funds. Yes contraception fails, but if we follow @"enchy"#174 's viewpoint: they see a fetus as a human life on (presumably) equal footing as a born human. Therefore it would be silly to make the argument that it is "okay" to murder an unborn child purely because of an accident. @"enchy"#174 would likely say that if you're unprepared to have a child, then you don't get to have sex (in regards to ethics). This is already the case for people waiting before marriage to fuck.

Rape is indeed the exception, and I think @"enchy"#174 would be hard-pressed to argue against abortion in extreme cases such as rape.

Quote

↩ @'Ryan' So you’re removing more freedoms?

View it from the opposing party - I don't think you would argue that by not allowing murder you are depriving people of freedom. Well, you are, but that freedom to murder comes at the cost of anothers.

Quote

↩  RedEastWood Are you suggesting that a pregnant woman getting an abortion is equivalent to a slave owner killing a slave, or a dictator killing a protestor? You make semi-decent points at times, but you always provide these insane comparisons.

He's not, and to insinuate as though he is is nothing but disingenious. He's simply making the point that something that isn't viewed as "immoral" now can change as time goes on.

Quote

↩  bowie you are disgusting if you think that you have a say on what women do with their bodies and i’m embarrassed for you

I find it silly to argue that men can't have an opinion on what they may view as equally morally abhorrent as murder.

Quote

↩  bowie if a 14 year old girl wants to adopt a child they can’t because they aren’t financially stable etc, but if a 14 year old girl wants to have an abortion who isn’t financially stable they can’t have one

Good point.

Quote

↩  enchy https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

and its large but not the main driving force of why people get abortions. so saying people get abortions to prevent economic hardship is wrong since that only applies to ⅕ of abortions.

Ridiculous source. Where do they get the 23% number from?

I think the entire disagreement in this thread stems from confusion on the fundamental beliefs of the opposing party. @"enchy"#174 views a fetus as a life on equal footing as a regular person, whereas the pro-choice side fundamentally don't view a fetus as a person before x weeks or until birth.

The issue here remains that it is incredibly difficult to make a non-arbitrary distinction from when a fetus becomes a person - is it when a consciousness is formed? Is it when the pain receptors are fully developed? Is it when you're born?

Contraception fails - an accident doesn't allow you to murder somebody else on purpose.

Also: GTFO if you can't have a civil discussion in Deep Discussion. Resorting to spam, personal attacks and an aggressive tone only makes you look like a fool. If you can't handle the topic being discussed without getting emotional, then you aren't mature enough to participate in this debate.

Despite my personal opinions on this matter (which I have already expressed in this thread), I've had to moderate this thread to remove a few inappropriate remarks. I've tried to remain as objective as possible to avoid a biased moderation, so please don't attack me for trying to firefight a thread like this. I was actually half-tempted to lock this thread outright to put it out of its misery, but decided to just moderate what I could instead.

Seeing what happened here as someone who didn't participate in the argument at all, I'm honestly dumbfounded and disappointed with how this turned out. Please remain civil when discussing sensitive shit like this and please do not escalate things.

Quote

↩  enchy 20% is a pretty fucking large percentage… Also citation needed.

https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

This source is literally biased. It is not even a source, its just propaganda. Look at the title of the pages on the website - “Bringing an end to abortion”, “Case against abortion”.

Sources are meant to be unbiased, with a clear track of how they obtained data. The sources I listed are far better than this piece of propaganda you have mentioned. If this website is where you base all of your statistics from, then I’m sorry to say that your argument is a product of propaganda.

Quote

↩  Miwojedk He’s not, and to insinuate as though he is is nothing but disingenious. He’s simply making the point that something that isn’t viewed as “immoral” now can change as time goes on.

No, I think his point was that murdering a foetus is similar to a slave owner killing a slave. I might have misunderstood so enchy should clear things up. The way it was worded certainly suggests what I thought.

Quote

↩  Miwojedk Rape is indeed the exception, and I think @enchy would be hard-pressed to argue against abortion in extreme cases such as rape.

if the argument against abortion is because the the fetus is a human, how is a baby born from rape any less human? yes its traumatic for everyone involved but that doesnt make the baby any less human.

Quote

↩  RedEastWood Are you suggesting that a pregnant woman getting an abortion is equivalent to a slave owner killing a slave, or a dictator killing a protestor? You make semi-decent points at times, but you always provide these insane comparisons.

no, im saying that the way we look back at slavery and say “wow people were so evil back then” is the same way people will look back at us for abortion.

btw i cited my source in an earlier reply, here it is https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

idk why our sources are so different, this is thr first one that showed up when i googled abortion statistics

other than that miwo responded to pretty much everything i wanted to and i think he understands my viewpoint well so im not gonna reply anymore because the last time this debate happened it turned into kind of a flame war

↩  enchy the sources are so different because your source is literal fucking propaganda

↩  RedEastWood refer to this reply

Quote

↩  enchy idk why our sources are so different, this is thr first one that showed up when i googled abortion statistics

If you see the about page it even addresses the fact that it's inherently biased towards anti abortion.

Quote

Abort73.com is part of Loxafamosity Ministries, Inc. (LMI), a non-profit 501(c)3 Christian education corporation. Abort73.com is an online resource designed to creatively and comprehensively educate people about the injustice of abortion, and provide them with simple tools to help pass that education along to others.

If you wanted impartial data it suggests other data sources which it gets its data from and I'd suggest looking at those instead.

I think what some of us here is missing is the fact that we're not seeing the problem for what it is, but rather, just a number on some graph. It's definitely much more than that, imo.

It doesn't matter whether the percentages show that only 20% of the cases is because of this, or if 5% of the cases is because of that. It doesn't change the fact that by overturning this precedent, we're removing the choice and the basic rights of a person to bodily autonomy.

Because now when you look at it, what would happen to those who DID and will fall under that "small percentage" of cases?

@"enchy"#174 you can't use a very clearly biased source in what is meant to be an objective discussion about statistics and facts. If you keep citing facts, make sure they are unbiased and actually accurate. Refer to the sources I mentioned, they are unbiased and have a clear track of how they obtained their results. They do not push any opinion, but rather just give information.

From what Ryan provided, you can clearly see how your source is biased and propaganda at best (considering they don't even mention how they get their data)-

Abort73.com is part of Loxafamosity Ministries, Inc. (LMI), a non-profit 501©3 Christian education corporation. Abort73.com is an online resource designed to creatively and comprehensively educate people about the injustice of abortion, and provide them with simple tools to help pass that education along to others.

Quote

↩  enchy im not gonna reply anymore

At least admit that the source you based most of your “economic factor” arguments on is complete horseshit

Quote

I don't see a fetus as a person before they gain consciousness (i.e. circa 25 weeks). And even then, I still don't see a fetus as having the same "moral value" as a born person, which is why I can safely say that I do believe that abortion should be allowed up until 10-20 weeks in normal cases, and in extreme cases (e.g. rape) should be allowed up until birth. However, I would dare to assert that abortion cases after 20 weeks (or just before birth) are a miniscule percentage (<1%) of overall cases.

You need to specify if you see a fetus on equal footing as a person (i.e. after birth) - a hypothetical scenario to clear this up could be that you have a situation wherein you have to choose between the life of the mother or baby. The mother has a 100% chance of dying if she gives birth, and a 100% chance of surviving if she doesn't. Same percentages apply to the fetus - who do you save? If you value both equally, then presumably you would be unable to give me a clear concise answer, however I don't think that this is the case for you. Would you be able to say that the life of the unborn child is more 'precious' than that of the mother? If you won't, then you concede that there is something inherently more 'valuable' to the mother vs. the fetus.

Quote

↩ @'neoivanov' we’re removing the choice and the basic rights of a person to bodily autonomy.

If I were to say that I value the life of the fetus equally as a person, how would I not be infringing on the bodily autonomy of the fetus by aborting it? The fetus is dependant on the mother in a similar manner a baby is dependant on the mother, no?

Quote

↩  RedEastWood From what Ryan provided, you can clearly see how your source is biased and propaganda at best (considering they don’t even mention how they get their data)-

Abort73.com is part of Loxafamosity Ministries, Inc. (LMI), a non-profit 501©3 Christian education corporation. Abort73.com is an online resource designed to creatively and comprehensively educate people about the injustice of abortion, and provide them with simple tools to help pass that education along to others.

A source coming from an advocacy group does not necessarily mean it's propaganda. I don't believe you would claim that your source from Guttmacher Institute is propaganda as well. Now in this case you could perhaps argue that it is an untrustworthy source in that they don't give any sources behind their "23%" number.

The 23% number seems to come from this book: Reproductive Ethics in Clinical Practice: Preventing, initiating and managing pregnancy and delivering. You can find it on Google Books with an excerpt for free. Page 13, line 13-16

"In the united states, 49% of abortion patients have incomes below the poverty line and an additional 26% have low incomes; 73% of abortion patients list 'can't afford a baby now' as one of their reasons, and 23% list it as 'the most important reason'."

Quote

↩  RedEastWood They [my sources] do not push any opinion, but rather just give information.

At least admit that the source you based most of your “economic factor” arguments on is complete horseshit

This is false.

Guttmacher Institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) worldwide.

You also neglect to mention what constitutes "economic factors/financial reasons". Neither of the three papers you linked use the same definition. As we just read from the quote above, the 23% number constitutes economic factors as "the most important reason". So Abort73 might not be the most reputable source, but the 23% number does in fact come from a licensed doctor.