What happens if Roe v. Wade is reversed?

[udaydanceparty 33]

59 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

If it's reversed then the following election will be amazing and protests/political gatherings will get violent.

And then, as I've alluded to on another thread, the right will see that they've been underestimating a frothing voter base voting with their brain stems just like the left underestimated the same thing in 2016.

The president's critics have already become the exact same thing they accused the president's supporters of being.

[RandomIdoit 655]

38 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I know a lot of men who would have had to take women across state lines. 

I'm sure some of those men are posting in this very thread and vote Republican.

Use contraceptives. Plan B if an accident happens. I know hard core people are against this, but for most people it is perfectly fine.

[David Dennison 18659]

6 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Use contraceptives. Plan B if an accident happens. I know hard core people are against this, but for most people it is perfectly fine.

And if rape or incest happens? What if poverty happens and you can't afford Plan B?

Edited June 28, 2018 by David Dennison

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

Do you think Plan B doesn't work for rape victims?

[Fuck Tim Beck 3806]

Lot's more inbred retards being born. Advantage aggy and the entire SEC! 

[Huckleberry 32703]

11 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

The president's critics have already become the exact same thing they accused the president's supporters of being.

And I'm betting you're myopic enough to think that only goes one direction. You're as bad as any of the mouthbreathers on the left, so congrats I guess.

[David Dennison 18659]

7 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Do you think Plan B doesn't work for rape victims?

Sure it does if you can afford it. So does abortion. Which is why it should be legal and safe.

Edited June 28, 2018 by David Dennison

[RandomIdoit 655]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And if rape or incest happens? What if poverty happens and you can't afford Plan B?

Those are the exceptions. Also, if the mother's health is at risk. If you cannot afford $20 for Plan B, then you cannot afford children and probably shouldn't have them. If you choose to anyway, that is a poor decision.

Edited June 28, 2018 by RandomIdoit

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

Something works...so therefore it should be legal. That's some solid logic right there.

[udaydanceparty 33]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

And I'm betting you're myopic enough to think that only goes one direction. You're as bad as any of the mouthbreathers on the left, so congrats I guess.

So both sides?

[David Dennison 18659]

5 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Those are the exceptions. Also, if the mothers' health is at risk. If you cannot afford $20 for Plan B, then you cannot afford children and probably shouldn't have them. If you choose to anyway, that is a poor decision.

If Roe is overturned there will be states with no exceptions.

[David Dennison 18659]

5 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Something works...so therefore it should be legal. That's some solid logic right there.

Why shouldn't it be legal?

[RandomIdoit 655]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If Roe is overturned there will be states with no exceptions.

The problem with the exceptions besides the mother's health being at risk (you can prove that) is that people can just lie and say they were raped just to be allowed to have an abortion. I personally think more emphasis should be put on prevention than whether they are allowed to have them or not. If you force people to have kids that they don't want or can't afford, they will just be mistreated and live a terrible life, IMO.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

If Plan B works why should abortion be an option? The fact is that about half of americans think that abortion is morally wrong. Likely most of them because they believe that an unborn life deserves rights. So arguing from the point of view that it doesn't deserve those rights doesn't do anything but show all you really care about is looking down on those who disagree with you.

[David Dennison 18659]

6 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

If Plan B works why should abortion be an option? The fact is that about half of americans think that abortion is morally wrong. Likely most of them because they believe that an unborn life deserves rights. So arguing from the point of view that it doesn't deserve those rights doesn't do anything but show all you really care about is looking down on those who disagree with you.

Why shouldn't abortion be a legal option along with Plan B? 

[Incredulity 11555]

the one correct answer is obviously

 

 

[Huckleberry 32703]

7 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

If Plan B works why should abortion be an option? The fact is that about half of americans think that abortion is morally wrong. Likely most of them because they believe that an unborn life deserves rights. So arguing from the point of view that it doesn't deserve those rights doesn't do anything but show all you really care about is looking down on those who disagree with you.

So do those people believe that a child merely conceived in the United States should be an American citizen, or is an unborn child deserving of rights only when it's convenient?

[udaydanceparty 33]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Why shouldn't it be legal?

At some point between conception and it's 18th birthday it becomes a living human being with it's own rights.  Killing a human being is against the law and it should be.

The argument really needs to be defining the point at which it's no longer a clump of cells and becomes a human.  Personally, I don't believe that point is at conception but I also don't think you suddenly become human upon passing through the birth canal.  I think most people share that view but I could be wrong.

 

 

[Huckleberry 32703]

5 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

At some point between conception and it's 18th birthday it becomes a living human being with it's own rights.  Killing a human being is against the law and it should be.

The argument really needs to be defining the point at which it's no longer a clump of cells and becomes a human.  Personally, I don't believe that point is at conception but I also don't think you suddenly become human upon passing through the birth canal.  I think most people share that view but I could be wrong.

 

 

Viability is the best dividing line but the problem is that line will move depending on the medical technology available to the pregnant woman. So a woman with better insurance and medical coverage would have a pregnancy with a different viability date than a poor woman with no insurance or ability to pay. Now that would be a fun policy debate. [/sarcasm]

[RandomIdoit 655]

7 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

At some point between conception and it's 18th birthday it becomes a living human being with it's own rights.  Killing a human being is against the law and it should be.

The argument really needs to be defining the point at which it's no longer a clump of cells and becomes a human.  Personally, I don't believe that point is at conception but I also don't think you suddenly become human upon passing through the birth canal.  I think most people share that view but I could be wrong.

 

 

The argument I have read is that if the baby can survive outside the womb, even with machines, then it is viable. Before then, no. I don't believe this because I remember seeing the sonogram with a heartbeat and would never be convinced that my child was not a person yet.

[David Dennison 18659]

8 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

At some point between conception and it's 18th birthday it becomes a living human being with it's own rights.  Killing a human being is against the law and it should be.

The argument really needs to be defining the point at which it's no longer a clump of cells and becomes a human.  Personally, I don't believe that point is at conception but I also don't think you suddenly become human upon passing through the birth canal.  I think most people share that view but I could be wrong.

This is an argument in favor of safe and legal abortion.

[David Dennison 18659]

6 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

The argument I have read is that if the baby can survive outside the womb, even with machines, then it is viable. Before then, no. I don't believe this because I remember seeing the sonogram with a heartbeat and would never be convinced that my child was not a person yet.

So in your opinion, when, if ever, should it be legally acceptable to terminate this person prior to birth? 

[Huckleberry 32703]

For those who want to outlaw abortion, the solution I've always proposed is that a woman should be allowed to have a fetus removed from her body, but not killed, at any time. If medical technology can save the life of the fetus then the government can foot the bill.

For some reason saving the life of the fetus gets less important when I propose that.

[udaydanceparty 33]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Viability is the best dividing line but the problem is that line will move depending on the medical technology available to the pregnant woman. So a woman with better insurance and medical coverage would have a pregnancy with a different viability date than a poor woman with no insurance or ability to pay. Now that would be a fun policy debate. [/sarcasm]

In principle we are in agreement though correct?

The way i'd approach this issue is to set certain checkmarks for development and if you find them, an abortion should be illegal.  That's no different than how it currently is btw..

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

Legit question:

Those who consider themselves Pro-Life: Is their a point where it's just "cells" and you are ok with an abortion?

Those who consider themselves Pro-Choice: Is their a point where it's a "baby" and shouldn't be aborted?

 

[udaydanceparty 33]

8 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

The argument I have read is that if the baby can survive outside the womb, even with machines, then it is viable. Before then, no. I don't believe this because I remember seeing the sonogram with a heartbeat and would never be convinced that my child was not a person yet.

So you have a checklist that would include a heartbeat as a criteria for nixing the abortion.  Anyone want to counter why that shouldn't be the case?

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

This is an argument in favor of safe and legal abortion.

All i'm doing is framing the discussion so it's more constructive.  I don't think most people realize how much common ground rationale people have and the political BS causes us to talk past eachother.

[David Dennison 18659]

5 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Legit question:

Those who consider themselves Pro-Life: Is their a point where it's just "cells" and you are ok with an abortion?

Those who consider themselves Pro-Choice: Is their a point where it's a "baby" and shouldn't be aborted?

Personally, I think viability is a good standard as long as pregnancy doesn't affect the health of the mother.

[RandomIdoit 655]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So in your opinion, when, if ever, should it be legally acceptable to terminate this person prior to birth? 

In my personal opinion, if the child is the product of rape or incest, the mother's health is at risk, or the child has some kind of condition that means it will suffer for it's entire life, then I think it would be acceptable. That is how I feel. Not using birth control, being careless, and making poor decisions are not valid reasons to have an abortion in my opinion.

[udaydanceparty 33]

9 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Legit question:

Those who consider themselves Pro-Life: Is their a point where it's just "cells" and you are ok with an abortion?

Those who consider themselves Pro-Choice: Is their a point where it's a "baby" and shouldn't be aborted? 

 

I'd consider myself Pro-Life and I think there are conditions where terminating a pregnancy is ethical and morally acceptable. I guess I should also repeat myself by saying life doesn't begin at conception IMO. 

[udaydanceparty 33]

6 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

In my personal opinion, if the child is the product of rape or incest, the mother's health is at risk, or the child has some kind of condition that means it will suffer for it's entire life, then I think it would be acceptable. That is how I feel. Not using birth control, being careless, and making poor decisions are not valid reasons to have an abortion in my opinion. 

Then you'd get rid of a vast majority of all abortions.

https://www.actionlife.org/index.php/life-issues/abortion/item/124-the-real-reason-women-choose-abortion

 

[David Dennison 18659]

9 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

In my personal opinion, if the child is the product of rape or incest, the mother's health is at risk, or the child has some kind of condition that means it will suffer for it's entire life, then I think it would be acceptable. That is how I feel. Not using birth control, being careless, and making poor decisions are not valid reasons to have an abortion in my opinion.

So abortion is acceptable if the unborn child has the misfortune of being the product of rape or incest?

Does Down Syndrome qualify as condition of lifetime suffering?

 

[Incredulity 11555]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So abortion is acceptable if the unborn child has the misfortune of being the product of rape or incest?

Does Down Syndrome qualify as condition of lifetime suffering?

 

How has your life been?

[David Dennison 18659]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

How has your life been?

If I had to guess, not much different than yours.

[RandomIdoit 655]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So abortion is acceptable if the unborn child has the misfortune of being the product of rape or incest?

In my opinion, yes.

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Does Down Syndrome qualify as condition of lifetime suffering?

Personally, no. I have known people with down syndrome that live productive lives. 

[Huckleberry 32703]

Personally, no. I have known people with down syndrome that live productive lives. 

So you believe that the rights of the mother are more important than the rights of the fetus. A child conceived by rape has done nothing wrong, yet you think abortion should be allowed in that case. Why?

[cafe society 2841]

28 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

For those who want to outlaw abortion, the solution I've always proposed is that a woman should be allowed to have a fetus removed from her body, but not killed, at any time. If medical technology can save the life of the fetus then the government can foot the bill.

For some reason saving the life of the fetus gets less important when I propose that.

Yep.  And those people aren't pro-life, they are pro-birth.   Perhaps it's a very vocal minority, but in my experience it emcompasses the majority of people self-titling as pro-life.

[MoJames 8241]

Just have a government program that offers free Vasectomies and all this can be avoided.

[RandomIdoit 655]

13 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

19 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Personally, no. I have known people with down syndrome that live productive lives. 

So you believe that the rights of the mother are more important than the rights of the fetus. A child conceived by rape has done nothing wrong, yet you think abortion should be allowed in that case. Why?

Because it the child was not conceived with consent. It wasn't a poor decision or carelessness that caused the mother to become pregnant. It sounds ridiculous, but that is what I believe. Why would you force someone to have a child that is the product of rape? I'm not saying that if a woman is raped she HAS to have an abortion. I'm saying she should be allowed to. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by RandomIdoit

[Huckleberry 32703]

I'm just trying to clarify your position. It appears that you do not oppose abortion on the basis of the fetus's rights, but rather on the mother needing to "take responsibility" for getting pregnant.

That seems like the weakest argument against abortion to me.

[ndawg 1242]

12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I'm just trying to clarify your position. It appears that you do not oppose abortion on the basis of the fetus's rights, but rather on the mother needing to "take responsibility" for getting pregnant.

That seems like the weakest argument against abortion to me.

Especially because it begs another question, why don't men have to "take responsibility?"

[relapse98 634]

7 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Especially because it begs another question, why don't men have to "take responsibility?"

Because the whore should have kept her legs closed.

[RandomIdoit 655]

5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I'm just trying to clarify your position. It appears that you do not oppose abortion on the basis of the fetus's rights, but rather on the mother needing to "take responsibility" for getting pregnant.

That seems like the weakest argument against abortion to me.

I personally think that my child was a person and had rights when I saw the heartbeat. My children were conceived with the consent of both parents. I do not believe that people should use abortion as a way to get out of their poor choices. There are plenty of ways to avoid getting pregnant.  

[MoJames 8241]

13 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Especially because it begs another question, why don't men have to "take responsibility?"

[RandomIdoit 655]

12 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Especially because it begs another question, why don't men have to "take responsibility?"

They do. They either man up and support their child, or they pay child support. If not, they get thrown in jail. If there is a breakdown in the system, that is another argument, but there are consequences for fathering a child.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

27 minutes ago, MoJames said:

Just have a government program that offers free Vasectomies and all this can be avoided.

If we outlaw sperm only outlaws will have sperm.

[MoJames 8241]

5 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

If we outlaw sperm only outlaws will have sperm.

Unless we have a friendly vasectomy done on admission to jail?

We figured it out!

[Storm the Field 5273]

A number of states have triggers that kick in upon a repeal of Roe, either immediately banning the practice, or codifying its legality under state law.

So, you'd likely end up with a patchwork where its completely banned in certain states, severely restricted in others, and maybe 15 or so where the status quo would remain.

Middle and upper class women would continue to have the means to obtain an abortion, while the poors likely wouldn't. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by Storm the Field

[Huckleberry 32703]

36 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

I personally think that my child was a person and had rights when I saw the heartbeat. My children were conceived with the consent of both parents. I do not believe that people should use abortion as a way to get out of their poor choices. There are plenty of ways to avoid getting pregnant.  

Ignoring for a moment that no form of birth control other than abstinence is 100% effective, I'm curious how many other medical procedures that help people avoid the consequences for poor choices you think should be illegal?

Do you think that chemotherapy to treat lung cancer in lifelong smokers should be illegal? Do you think that it should be illegal for someone severely injured while street racing to receive medical care? There are of course a near infinite number of analogies.

I'm going to assume that the answer to these questions is no. Mostly because if it's not then you're just a silly person and there's no point discussing it with you.

The likeliest reason that the answer to those questions is no but the answer in the case of abortion is yes is because you feel that another human life is negatively affected by an abortion. So assuming that's the case I circle back to the question of why a child conceived via rape is not as important to you as a child conceived otherwise. Why does a child conceived by rape have less value as a life than others?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

And if rape or incest happens? What if poverty happens and you can't afford Plan B?

If you can't afford the $15-20 for a Plan B knockoff, you should be working and not fucking.

I seriously doubt Roe is overturned unless RBG kicks the bucket in the next two years.

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Legit question:

Those who consider themselves Pro-Life: Is their a point where it's just "cells" and you are ok with an abortion?

Those who consider themselves Pro-Choice: Is their a point where it's a "baby" and shouldn't be aborted?

 

This dichotomy is the problem with the abortion debate.  The question of what constitutes life is an incredibly morally and philosophically grey area with plenty of good arguments on both side.  That leads me to conclude that, from a policy perspective, the choice whether to terminate a pregnancy should be left to the woman to decide based upon her own morals and within reason.  This approach is supported by data showing that abortion rates do not correlate to the legality of abortion but do correlate to the safety of abortion: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html.  If the ethical question is grey, and prohibiting abortion makes it less safe but not less prevalent, then leave the ethical question to the person making the decision and put them in an environment where, if the decision is made, the procedure will be safe.  

Further, since the ethical question is unclear and there are arguments that abortion should be avoided, this approach should complemented by laws that provide access to resources that data show likely decrease abortion rates.  Access to free or low cost contraception, sex education, and healthcare all correlate with lower rates of abortion.  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reducing-abortion-rates-policy_us_589b8ea5e4b09bd304bfd920; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/17/us-abortion-rate-lowest-roe-wade-contraception-access; https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/access-to-free-birth-control-reduces-abortion-rates/.  

So, the focus should really be on education and healthcare, not legality.  Clearly this is an approach with which Pro-Choicers would agree.  And if Pro-lifers are sincere in their arguments that abortion should be eliminated or decreased then this would be the pragmatic approach to meet those ends.  The alternative is to argue for an approach that the data show does not work, which results in me concluding that they are either unthinking ideologues or that their true end is the subjugation of women.