Roe v. Wade is history

Post Reply New Topic

This thread is yet another reflection of how antichoicers don't care about facts, just their feelings. Dialogue with disinformed monsters isn't likely to advance human rights, eliminating their ability to organize and impose their barbarism would be far more effective.

Targeting where they organize, along with the fake counselling offices they run and other relevant parts of their infrastructure seems like a more viable method. Whether they're targeted by protests or other methods is up to one's own morality.

Another myth. People can get health care in the US. They just choose not to. Part of that problem has to do with how much information people have to know about what services are available and how to get them. Leftist politicians and community organizers aren't always best served by an informed constituency. Never forget that. Data-driven by people still living in the most impoverished areas will normally reflect the absolute worst outcomes while minorities living in more homogenous areas will tend to have better outcomes.

It's the same reason why Canada’s system is reportedly far superior to the US. They don't collect data on race. BY LAW they cannot collect data on race. But if you examine narratives from middle eastern, black, and first nations, you find an entirely different story of class struggle and racism. What story would US stats show if race and economics were completely left out of reporting?


What about them? I never argued that women can't have abortions if necessary to save lives.


You have me confused with someone who cares what other people say. I don't need permission from Pro-Life supporters to form my own opinions and express them. I don't support a total abortion ban. I do believe it is useful to debate some of the nuances, such as whether rape victims SHOULD have the right to abort. But there’s just no existential reason to ever have it if there’s no direct threat to the mother.


I don't recall making any unnecessary assumptions, if any. You are confused. This discussion isn't about religion.



Irrelevant. I had child from a broken condom. 100% of my paycheck goes to child support and his karate lessons. So what?


Don’t confuse one’s ability with one’s will. Often the problem isn’t so much ability but rather the flow of information about what options are available. The idea of “can’t” as a guiding philosophical principle is often, perhaps even MOST often, not rooted in reality.


What circular argument? What exactly do you think happens to babies during an abortion?

I’d lay this out as a syllogism to show the logic...however, understanding what involved in a typical D&C should be enough. The baby is dismembered by suction. Ripping the baby apart kills them.

Other methods follow a similar pattern of killing the baby and removing it. The saline method pulls water out of the baby, killing them, and they are expelled from the womb. There’s the two-pill method that has gained attention in recent years--baby dies, is expelled from the womb. Partial birth involves killing the baby by giving them digitalis and/or cutting the umbilical cord. The baby dies and is then removed.

My actual argument has nothing to with defining abortion since it is reasonably assumed what abortion is. There’s no need to prove that abortion kills babies. My main opponents accept that there is a baby in the womb, that abortion involves killing the baby and removing it, and that the primary concern of abortion is that a baby is not born alive. My argument is this:

1. Murder is the intentional, unjustifiable killing of another human being.
2. An abortion is the intentional, unjustifiable killing of a human baby.
3. Therefore: Abortion is murder.

One could argue that the way abortion is defined in 2 means that getting rid of a baby because of cancer treatments, ectopic pregnancy, a pregnancy that is the result of rape, the removal of a baby that has died, the loss of a baby due to an accident, the loss of a baby due to nature causes beyond the mother’s control do not match the definition of abortion. Saving the life of the mother is self-defense. Termination as a response to rape might also qualify as self-defense, with other implications for the justice system. So those are examples of something that is justifiable. Justifiable homicide does not meet the definition of murder. Accidents happen, so the loss of a baby is not always deliberate. Miscarriages happen--also not deliberate. So any time a terminated pregnancy fails to meet BOTH qualifications of deliberate or premeditated AND unjustifiable, it is murder.

But I don't define ALL abortions as murder. I’m only pointing out premeditated and unjustifiable abortions as murder. Abortion definitions commonly include ANY pregnancies that have terminated, even spontaneous ones. And consequently I do not believe a total abortion ban is reasonable.

Hopefully I’ve explained enough to show this isn't question-begging, or at least no more question-begging than any other argument.



And completely irrelevant, unless the injury will necessarily end the life of the mother, in which case the doctors will already know about it and advise her about her options. My wife once had a baby in breach AND placenta previa—putting her in less than 1% of pregnancies. Well...they’re both still alive, and the baby is now a teenager. So when we talk about reproductive injuries, we’re really talking about extremely rare instances where injuries are life-threatening, otherwise they are inconsequential relative to the purpose of this discussion.

One person’s anecdote is another person’s lived experience. Come back and talk to me about it when you’ve been there yourself. There is nothing funny about your partner almost dying right in front of you.

And who is invoking religion? Sex naturally leads to pregnancy. B.C. methods reduce the risk to near zero. No sex = no baby. Ever.

And if you insist on invoke religion, abstinence only failed ONCE in human history, and even THAT girl consented.

Abstinence isn't a demand you're entitled to make upon anyone else and failure to maintain abstinence isn't an excuse to deny one's bodily autonomy.

No matter how many rhetorical knots you tie yourself in if you'll always be arguing to deny a person's rights on behalf of a non-person.

With respect, I’m not going to respond to the usual extent I normally would...it’s pretty clear where we both stand and this is just beating a dead horse. I think the only thing I can contribute is that domestic violence is a separate issue and should treat as such. Men must not be allowed to get away with abusing women.

I just want to say that it sucks your partner mistreated you. I realize we don't live in a perfect world, but it blows my mind that as far as we’ve come since the 1940’s that people can still be this evil to each other. My position is that domestic violence has no gender and is always unacceptable. Narcissist men and Ambers should be things of the past by now.

Domestic violence is not a separate issue. It’s one of the reasons wby people need access to abortions.

Domestic violence is unacceptable but it’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

Who's making demands? I just pointed out that it is a reasonable option. No sex = no baby, and that has been scientifically proven. I’ve never heard of human pathogenesis, and the oft-quoted Biblical example resulted in the birth of a human male, something that is impossible without supernatural intervention. I have no expectations for people to abstain from sex. But it's not unreasonable to point out that one thing leads to another and that actions have consequences. All I’d rather see are people being responsible for their actions rather than killing innocent people who had no choice over what their parents did. You make the choice, you accept the risks, you accept what might happen.

Inevitable death occurs during childbirth. When it happens, it is death.
You can't send them into a time machine to have an abortion.

This is the inevitable part of all childbirth risks.


The question is, why can we take "fetus = baby/human" as the premise?
This is absurd in other cultures.


So uterine prolapse is an insignificant sequela? The goal is more human, not more people?

Responsibility is equal to deciding and bearing the consequences.
Many people choose to drive and take the risk of car accidents.
But what is the logical relationship between this and "doctors forbid providing medical services to car accident victims because they are responsible for themselves"?

Last edited by SkinnedWolf on 23 Jul 2022, 2:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The risks might include having to pursue termination.

There's no inherent reason why access to that procedure should be limited and none of the arguments trotted out by antichoicers are compelling enough to justify denying people basic rights like bodily autonomy.

There's no inherent reason why being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy should be viewed as a "natural" consequences when it's one that exists because antichoicers seek to deny access to a medical procedure, not because that procedure doesn't exist.

Antichoicers ought to be dealt with like any other group that actively promotes denying others their fundamental rights.

They're the problem, not a lack of abstinence. Eliminating the problem will involve eliminating the ideology that drives it.

Tell that to rape victims.

Sadly they will, often with quite a degree of hostility.
I've never seen a movement more devoid of basic compassion and empathy for people who aren't unborn.

People need access to abortions to enable abusers?

Having a kid with an abuser makes it much harder to eliminate the abuser from one's life because of how parental rights will likely be applied.

That’s true. I was raised to be pro-life and have heard it all.

Victims of domestic violence need to focus on their safety.

Some could find having a baby to an abuser horrifyingly triggering.

People may have to interact with their abusers regularly due to visitation (or whatever). This is extraordinarily triggering and could make it hard to work on PTSD-related issues. It could also lead to more abuse, and thus, be dangerous.

In China, a not uncommon immoral behavior is that men secretly destroy condoms to make women pregnant, and then control women. (this is actually something that can happen in any culture that still has patriarchy)
Imagine how doomed eternally she would be if abortion were banned at the same time.

It is impossible to enforce the law for destroying condoms.
But law enforcement is even crazier for abortion, which is still harmful to that woman, but less harmful than another possibility.

Such laws will help and encourage such victimization and prevent victims from escaping.

Last edited by SkinnedWolf on 23 Jul 2022, 3:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.