Jump to content

What happens if Roe v. Wade is reversed?

Zombie

By Zombie
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Bacon Gayfield

Bacon Gayfield 37

Posted
Posted (edited)

I was pretty pro-choice until about a year ago when I read something on shaggy, actually, that changed my mind. And I'm sure my wife being pregnant has some influence.

Your wife and you are trying to have a baby. She gets pregnant. You are happy to be starting a family.  Not long after, she is "stabbed" in the stomach by a mugger on the way back to your car. The mother lives, the baby dies. 

Do you want the mugger that stabbed your wife to be charged with murder?

Intellectual honesty renders me incapable of denying that yes, I would want them charged with the murder of my unborn baby. 

Abortion is murder. Beyond rape, incest, danger to mother's life and an imminent life of suffering for the baby, it should be illegal. 

Edited by Bacon Gayfield
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Poolflood

Poolflood 845

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Pods said:

If I'm not coming out of it, yes. My family has been repeatedly instructed that they are to pull the plug. 

If i can be kept alive on a machine and get better, then do that. It's exactly the same position as putting a viable fetus into an incubator. 

Fair enough.  But a viable Pod/pool is different today than it was 20 years ago or will be in 20 years.Does this change the morality/ethics of the decision?

Edited by Poolflood
Should have added legality
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7,530

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

Fair enough.  But a viable Pod/pool is different today than it was 20 years ago or will be in 20 years.Does this change the morality/ethics of the decision?

Fair point, but I think ~6 months is a very reasonable number. I don't think you can chase continuing fetal viability advances in perpetuity. Ultimately, anything but no limit or no abortions at all is setting an arbitrary deadline of some sort. 

Edited by Pods
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Poolflood

Poolflood 845

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Pods said:

There's going to be a pretty firm cap on it for a while, but as viability changes, I'm open to moving the induced and adopted program forward to match it. 

So if "viability" is a function of science and we're making these decisions that have ethical implications based on the current state of science.... where does that leave us?  I think we can agree that at point X in time science will allow conception come to a child.  Are we "wrong" at this point in time to allow that conception to be terminated?  Because we are limited by today's science?  Is it purely a pragmatic decision?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1,386

Posted
Posted
So if "viability" is a function of science and we're making these decisions that have ethical implications based on the current state of science.... where does that leave us?  I think we can agree that at point X in time science will allow conception come to a child.  Are we "wrong" at this point in time to allow that conception to be terminated?  Because we are limited by today's science?  Is it purely a pragmatic decision?
 
 
That pragmatism is focused on the fetus. What about the woman?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Poolflood

Poolflood 845

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, horncyclist said:
13 minutes ago, Poolflood said:
So if "viability" is a function of science and we're making these decisions that have ethical implications based on the current state of science.... where does that leave us?  I think we can agree that at point X in time science will allow conception come to a child.  Are we "wrong" at this point in time to allow that conception to be terminated?  Because we are limited by today's science?  Is it purely a pragmatic decision?
 
 

That pragmatism is focused on the fetus. What about the woman?

Expand on that.  The woman is still alive postpartum?  I've left out the child/mother issue.  That's a different decision.  I'm not saying it's trivial, just a separate discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7,530

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, horncyclist said:
22 minutes ago, Poolflood said:
So if "viability" is a function of science and we're making these decisions that have ethical implications based on the current state of science.... where does that leave us?  I think we can agree that at point X in time science will allow conception come to a child.  Are we "wrong" at this point in time to allow that conception to be terminated?  Because we are limited by today's science?  Is it purely a pragmatic decision?
 
 

That pragmatism is focused on the fetus. What about the woman?

Exactly, that's where the rights conflict and what I've proposed is already a massive compromise on the woman's rights parts. I'm trying to propose something practical, but ultimately, it's not my place. I can never be faced with that decision. When it comes down to it, abortion rights should be collectively decided by women and scientific consensus and the rest of us should stay out of it. 

Edited by Pods
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Poolflood

Poolflood 845

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Pods said:

Exactly, that's where the rights conflict and what I've proposed is already a massive compromise on the woman's rights parts. I'm trying to propose something practical, but ultimately, it's not my place. I can never be faced with that decision. When it comes down to it, abortion rights should be collectively decided by women and scientific consensus and the rest of us should stay out of it. 

And where I uncomfortably end up.  I don't necessarily agree that it's "right" but it's "right" right now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1,386

Posted
Posted
Expand on that.  The woman is still alive postpartum?  I've left out the child/mother issue.  That's a different decision.  I'm not saying it's trivial, just a separate discussion.
I'm just saying you're focused on one side of the issue. If the fetus is viable at an earlier stage then the loss of a pregnancy at x weeks is more significant. You argued that with a focus on viability, at a certain point, no abortion should be permitted, so that shows viability cannot be the correct measure because morality cannot shift with science. But that ignores the woman. The truth is the morality question is a matter of balancing the rights of the mother with that of whatever value is placed on the fetus. Science can advance one side of the equation but
, regardless of the viability point, the mother maintains rights over her body. How you reconcile the two is the morality/ethical judgement and doesn't change with science.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RandomIdoit

RandomIdoit 655

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Pods said:

Exactly, that's where the rights conflict and what I've proposed is already a massive compromise on the woman's rights parts. I'm trying to propose something practical, but ultimately, it's not my place. I can never be faced with that decision. When it comes down to it, abortion rights should be collectively decided by women and scientific consensus and the rest of us should stay out of it. 

I agree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Poolflood

Poolflood 845

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

I'm just saying you're focused on one side of the issue. If the fetus is viable at an earlier stage then the loss of a pregnancy at x weeks is more significant. You argued that with a focus on viability, at a certain point, no abortion should be permitted, so that shows viability cannot be the correct measure because morality cannot shift with science. But that ignores the woman. The truth is the morality question is a matter of balancing the rights of the mother with that of whatever value is placed on the fetus. Science can advance one side of the equation but
, regardless of the viability point, the mother maintains rights over her body. How you reconcile the two is the morality/ethical judgement and doesn't change with science.

Are you proposing an either/or scenario?  That's different than what I was speaking to.  

Your argument seems boil down to that the fetus is dependant (at this point in time and it won't matter in the future) on the mother's aquiescence.  But realistically all newborns are dependant on their caregivers......where does that leave us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UTGrad98

UTGrad98 2,259

Posted
Posted

What is hate is the slippery slope argument.

Common sense gun laws.....Fox news cries out that the government is coming to take your guns. It amazes me how many people believe it.

Abortion issue. Both sides are guilty. You have some liberals who are for partial birth abortions because it is a woman's right to choose and if they say no to partial birth abortions, then abortions in general will be outlawed. Some republicans are probably ok with plan B would never say anything to their conservative friends for fear of being labeled a godless heathen.

 

Personally I think the people who dont go down the slippery slope are cowards.

I am for common sense gun laws.

I am also ok with abortions in the first trimester only. Being a dad made me a bit more conservative in that regard but I am still pro-choice...right ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

Can you picture the aborted fetus, see it. Now imagine that fetus is an illegal alien.

From an American citizen?

 

a million of those fuckers a year?

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

American fetuses have more inherent value?

No, I was just curious how they became illegal aliens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ted Lange

Ted Lange 16,052

Posted
Posted

Fact. Whatever the law is, abortions will still happen.  Goal should be to limit them, but folks aren’t actually interested in that.  Also weird how the folks who usually love things like freakonomics, completely do a 180 on abortion.....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crusher

Crusher 127

Posted
Posted

What the fuck is freakanomics ? Please define.

My kid would be 30 yrs old now. I made a choice. So did the woman that I thought would be my wife eventually. That didn't happen. We all made a choice. I'll regret it for the rest of my life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ted Lange

Ted Lange 16,052

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Crusher said:

What the fuck is freakanomics ? Please define.

My kid would be 30 yrs old now. I made a choice. So did the woman that I thought would be my wife eventually. That didn't happen. We all made a choice. I'll regret it for the rest of my life.

Google.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Apep

Apep 645

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Crusher said:

What the fuck is freakanomics ? Please define.

My kid would be 30 yrs old now. I made a choice. So did the woman that I thought would be my wife eventually. That didn't happen. We all made a choice. I'll regret it for the rest of my life.

 

Freakonomics is the name of a book by a Chicago economist (Levitt) and a writer (Dubner). Levitt shot to fame in the late ‘90s for a paper that purported to show that the early ‘90s drop in the crime rate was largely the result of legalizing abortion. Other economists dug into the paper and discovered there were serious issues with the standard error or something like that. Another economist  came along at around the same time and published a paper showing that it wasn’t abortion, but decreasing levels of childhood lead exposure. I don’t recall if her paper ran into problems later. 

Edited by Apep
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8,397

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

Fact. Whatever the law is, abortions will still happen.  Goal should be to limit them, but folks aren’t actually interested in that.  Also weird how the folks who usually love things like freakonomics, completely do a 180 on abortion.....

Yeah. Imagine having principles and not agreeing with killing babies even though it will hurt at the ballot box down the road.  

I’m against killing poor brown kids.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SDG

SDG 3,319

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, Michael Knight said:

Spoken like a man

You are correct which is part of the reason I’m pro choice.  I appreciate the stats/education provided by a few of posters here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lucid

Lucid 3

Posted
Posted

The optimist in me likes to think that someday everyone will look back on the whole fetus slaughter thing with the same confusion and revulsion with which (almost) everyone looks on slavery today.

Alas, the cynic in me knows that the optimist is a fucking idiot and it ain't gonna happen without a violent shift in our way of thinking and the way our society works

gzzmta.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottsins

scottsins 1,953

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Lucid said:

The optimist in me likes to think that someday everyone will look back on the whole fetus slaughter thing with the same confusion and revulsion with which (almost) everyone looks on slavery today.

Alas, the cynic in me knows that the optimist is a fucking idiot and it ain't gonna happen without a violent shift in our way of thinking and the way our society works

gzzmta.gif

Username does NOT check out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,660

Posted
Posted
On 6/30/2018 at 6:58 AM, Johnny Sack said:

Yeah. Imagine having principles and not agreeing with killing babies even though it will hurt at the ballot box down the road.  

I’m against killing poor brown kids.  

Imagine having principles and not accepting the argument that abortion is killing a baby.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spankytoes

Spankytoes 1,736

Posted
Posted
On 6/30/2018 at 12:55 AM, Bacon Gayfield said:

I was pretty pro-choice until about a year ago when I read something on shaggy, actually, that changed my mind. And I'm sure my wife being pregnant has some influence.

Your wife and you are trying to have a baby. She gets pregnant. You are happy to be starting a family.  Not long after, she is "stabbed" in the stomach by a mugger on the way back to your car. The mother lives, the baby dies. 

Do you want the mugger that stabbed your wife to be charged with murder?

Intellectual honesty renders me incapable of denying that yes, I would want them charged with the murder of my unborn baby. 

Abortion is murder. Beyond rape, incest, danger to mother's life and an imminent life of suffering for the baby, it should be illegal. 

Your daughter drives home from school, misses a stop sign and sideswipes a pregnant mother. The mother lives but miscarries as a result. Should your daughter go to prison?

Your son mops the floor at Burger King and puts the Wet Floor sign in an area with an obstructed view. Pregnant woman doesn’t see it, slips, falls and crushes the baby. Should your son go to prison?

How many ridiculous scenarios and asterisks do you need?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26,437

Posted
Posted
On 6/29/2018 at 5:55 PM, Bacon Gayfield said:

I was pretty pro-choice until about a year ago when I read something on shaggy, actually, that changed my mind. And I'm sure my wife being pregnant has some influence.

Your wife and you are trying to have a baby. She gets pregnant. You are happy to be starting a family.  Not long after, she is "stabbed" in the stomach by a mugger on the way back to your car. The mother lives, the baby dies. 

Do you want the mugger that stabbed your wife to be charged with murder?

Intellectual honesty renders me incapable of denying that yes, I would want them charged with the murder of my unborn baby. 

Abortion is murder. Beyond rape, incest, danger to mother's life and an imminent life of suffering for the baby, it should be illegal. 

FWIW, I disagree with your conclusion, but I respect the manner by which you draw that conclusion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1,975

Posted
Posted
On 6/29/2018 at 5:55 PM, Bacon Gayfield said:

I was pretty pro-choice until about a year ago when I read something on shaggy, actually, that changed my mind. And I'm sure my wife being pregnant has some influence.

Your wife and you are trying to have a baby. She gets pregnant. You are happy to be starting a family.  Not long after, she is "stabbed" in the stomach by a mugger on the way back to your car. The mother lives, the baby dies. 

Do you want the mugger that stabbed your wife to be charged with murder?

Intellectual honesty renders me incapable of denying that yes, I would want them charged with the murder of my unborn baby. 

Abortion is murder. Beyond rape, incest, danger to mother's life and an imminent life of suffering for the baby, it should be illegal. 

So, being intellectually honest, your OK with the murder of a criminal's child because of a crime committed by his or her father? 

If we're being intellectually honest, I'm assuming you would not be OK with the Government killing a convicted murder's child as punishment for the father's crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RandomIdoit

RandomIdoit 655

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

So, being intellectually honest, your OK with the murder of a criminal's child because of a crime committed by his or her father? 

If we're being intellectually honest, I'm assuming you would not be OK with the Government killing a convicted murder's child as punishment for the father's crime. 

How are you drawing this conclusion from what was said? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...