Roe v. Wade is dead

[Dodger]

5 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Ectopic pregnancies alone are 2% of all pregnancies each year per AAFP this is dumb as hell when you don’t know what you’re talking about

 

Over 90% of abortions are elective of personal choice. The point is people get all riled up about some minority of abortions while bringing up arguments about another minority of abortions. What about late term abortions you baby murderer! Yeah well what about some raped 13 year old! It’s the extreme arguing the extreme. Both acting their extreme position is happening all the time when it’s not.

[Jason]

Just now, Dodger said:

 

Over 90% of abortions are elective of personal choice. The point is people get all riled up about some minority of abortions while bringing up arguments about another minority of abortions. What about late term abortions you baby murderer! Yeah well what about some raped 13 year old! It’s the extreme arguing the extreme. Both acting their extreme position is happening all the time when it’s not.

 

BoTh SiDeS

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

11 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

Over 90% of abortions are elective of personal choice. The point is people get all riled up about some minority of abortions while bringing up arguments about another minority of abortions. What about late term abortions you baby murderer! Yeah well what about some raped 13 year old! It’s the extreme arguing the extreme. Both acting their extreme position is happening all the time when it’s not.

What is an order of magnitude difference between these two

[Ominous]

53 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

Over 90% of abortions are elective of personal choice. 

And?

[crispy4000]

5 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

The economic and social challenges that confront large sections of American society in ensuring that children live healthy, happy, well-adjusted lives are the "utter nonsense", not my statement.

 

If anything, my statement ensures a lesser degree of suffering and is therefore inherently more moral.

 

This presumes that means to ensure a lesser amount of suffering outline the more sensible path.  (or whatever else you meant by "moral")

@sblfilms is right.  Even in a hypothetical society where all basic needs are met, abhorrent decisions could still be made under the premise of reducing suffering and/or preventing it.  Follow that rabbit hole far enough, and you effectively get to Jonestown.

 

This is why I personally can't bring myself to view societal issues strictly from the lens of reducing suffering.  We can sure as hell can do a better job of it though.

[skillzdadirecta]

It's a simple as this because you guys are making my nose bleed with the over intellectualizing and mental masturbation. The Right claims to be thinking about "the children" and babies in their fight against abortion. The hypocrisy comes in the fact that once the children are born, they have no interest in insuring those kids live productive lives in society since they are against most governmental social service programs. Say what you want about the Catholic church, but at least taking care of the poor is one of their tenets. Not so The Right. Also the hypocrisy in being "pro-life" but also "pro-death penalty" where you support killing people in a justice system YOU KNOW IS unfair and biased. I do believe this is what @Commissar SFLUFAN meant with his statement.

[crispy4000]

5 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

It's a simple as this because you guys are making my nose bleed with the over intellectualizing and mental masturbation. The Right claims to be thinking about "the children" and babies in their fight against abortion. The hypocrisy comes in the fact that once the children are born, they have no interest in insuring those kids live productive lives in society since they are against most governmental social service programs. Say what you want about the Catholic church, but at least taking care of the poor is one of their tenets. Not so The Right. Also the hypocrisy in being "pro-life" but also "pro-death penalty" where you support killing people in a justice system YOU KNOW IS unfair and biased. I do believe this is what @Commissar SFLUFAN meant with his statement.

Agreed.  But IMO, it’s still absolutely worth calling out the reducing suffering angle.  It’s what leads some people to adopt a perspective on fetal pain as a litmus test on this issue.

[Brian]

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Alright - if my "suffering mitigation" argument is unappealing, then how about this far more hard-nosed angle?

 

The economic costs to society for having to care for "unwanted" children (this is presuming that American society would even bother caring for them to begin with which is a highly dubious assumption at best) significantly outweighs the moral considerations of allowing them to come into existence in the first place.

 

Note: none of my arguments take the rights of the woman into consideration because invoking something as ephemeral as "rights" is a non-starter with me to begin with.

[CitizenVectron]

3 minutes ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

 

 

That's great and all, but the real moral move would be companies refusing to base operations in those states.

[SaysWho?]

“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.”

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

33 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.”

 

This is EXACTLY what I was getting at with my original thought on this yesterday.

 

Hell, I'm not even going to bother wasting my time by comparing the United States to "real" Developed World nations with robust social safety nets like those in Western Europe.  The United States falls short in comparison to parts of societies in the Global South where they genuinely do view the raising of a child as the responsibility of the entire village.  So the United States fails miserably when it comes to ensuring the well-being of its children from both an economic perspective due to its grotesque version of a free market system and a social perspective due to its twisted hyper-individualistic mythology.

 

Yeah, from my perspective, a child's non-existence is a preferable condition than risking the cosmic roll of the dice and hoping that none of what I wrote above has to be tested. 

[CitizenVectron]

25 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

This is EXACTLY what I was getting at with my original thought on this yesterday.

 

Hell, I'm not even going to bother wasting my time by comparing the United States to "real" Developed World nations with robust social safety nets like those in Western Europe.  The United States falls short in comparison to parts of societies in the Global South where they genuinely do view the raising of a child as the responsibility of the entire village.  So the United States fails miserably when it comes to ensuring the well-being of its children from both an economic perspective due to its grotesque version of a free market system and a social perspective due to its twisted hyper-individualistic mythology.

 

Yeah, from my perspective, a child's non-existence is a preferable condition than risking the cosmic roll of the dice and hoping that none of what I wrote above has to be tested. 

 

The emergence of life in the universe was a mistake. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

8 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

The emergence of life in the universe was a mistake. 

The Big Bang was a mistake

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

6 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Say what you want about the Catholic church, but at least taking care of the poor is one of their tenets. 

 

Also, for all of its massive and irredeemable faults and failures, the Roman Catholic Church is at least morally consistent in its pro-life stance in that it strenuously opposes both abortion and the death penalty.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

6 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Also, for all of its massive and irredeemable faults and failures, the Roman Catholic Church is at least morally consistent in its pro-life stance in that it strenuously opposes both abortion and the death penalty.

Someone should tell that to the catholic conservative majority on scotus who seem to go out of their way to try and kill people

[crispy4000]

46 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Alright - if my "suffering mitigation" argument is unappealing, then how about this far more hard-nosed angle?

 

The economic costs to society for having to care for "unwanted" children (this is presuming that American society would even bother caring for them to begin with which is a highly dubious assumption at best) significantly outweighs the moral considerations of allowing them to come into existence in the first place.

 

Note: none of my arguments take the rights of the woman into consideration because invoking something as ephemeral as "rights" is a non-starter with me to begin with.

Relies on a moral judgment that the economics supersede other considerations.

 

You could make an argument for forced sterilizations of different classes of society under those same pretexts.

 

I also don’t think you could find any agreement on what constitutes economically “unwanted” that is fair to those who will want it regardless.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

8 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Someone should tell that to the catholic conservative majority on scotus who seem to go out of their way to try and kill people

If there's another moral consistency, it's that actual Roman Catholics rarely obey the Roman Catholic Church.

[Chairslinger]

5 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Relies on a moral judgment that the economics supersede other considerations.

 

You could make an argument for forced sterilizations of different classes of society under those same pretexts.

 

 

Rookie mistake. Don't get Wade started on forced sterilization.....

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Relies on a moral judgment that the economics supersede other considerations.

 

You could make an argument for forced sterilizations of different classes of society under those same pretexts.

 

Don't forget the forced euthanization of those who are unable to contribute economically to society!

 

Yes, I'm well aware of all the counterarguments.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

Rookie mistake. Don't get Wade started on forced sterilization.....

 

Or forced euthanization either!

[crispy4000]

3 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Don't forget the forced euthanization of those who are unable to contribute economically to society!

 

Yes, I'm well aware of all the counterarguments.

And stand by it?  Not much more to say here if so.  
 

I wouldn’t call that truly pro-choice in the same way I wouldn’t call Republicans truly pro-life.

[legend]

I would put it more simply to avoid the baggage of "economy" as a metric. Even ignoring the immediate costs to the mothers, the world in which unwanted children are forced to be born is less preferable than the world in which they're not, even from a selfless stand point. When you couple that with the insanity about valuing "hypothetical" people and the actual toll on women's overall well being and peace of mind, it makes the anti-abortion position completely horrible.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

And stand by it?  Not much more to say here if so.  
 

I wouldn’t actually call that truly pro-choice in the same way I wouldn’t call Republicans truly pro-life.

 

I stand by my original statement position, even in full light of the all the moral ramifications.

 

And I don't call myself "pro-choice" at all - I describe myself as "pro-abortion".

[Jason]

20 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The Big Bang was a mistake

 

Bazinga! 

[Guest]

What this board does for me more than anything else is make me realize that I am and have always been far more satisfied with my existence than you people. Y’all seem miserable  

[crispy4000]

4 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I stand by my original statement position, even in full light of the all the moral ramifications.

 

And I don't call myself "pro-choice" at all - I describe myself as "pro-abortion".

Facinating.  What kind of #-child policy do you think the US should go with?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Facinating.  What kind of #-child policy do you think the US should go with?

A negative number, I’m sure

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

14 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Facinating.  What kind of #-child policy do you think the US should go with?

 

No set number at all, but rather the prospective parent would have to sufficiently prove that they would be able to adequately ensure the overall well-being of the child at the moment of birth.  Naturally, events that occur post-birth that would negatively impact the child's well-being cannot be accounted for, but that's where an actually "just" society would pick up that burden in that event.

 

My "pro-abortion" position means that the prospective parent would be encouraged/incentivized to terminate the pregnancy in the event that they cannot provide evidence that they can support the child post-birth without societal intervention.  In essence, abortion becomes the "default" societal position rather than birth.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

A negative number, I’m sure

 

I don't like children, but not that much

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

37 minutes ago, legend said:

When you couple that with the insanity about valuing "hypothetical" people...

 

This is an important distinction for me when it comes to morally differentiating the "value" (economic or otherwise) between an unborn child and an individual who has already engaged with existence in this world.  I simply don't view them as equivalent entities from a moral perspective.

[Zaku3]

1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

The emergence of life in the universe was a mistake. 

 

Damn even I haven't gone that far yet. Anytime I want to drop an asteroid on Earth it's always big enough to wipe out humanity but small enough that life can try again.

[Zaku3]

45 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

What this board does for me more than anything else is make me realize that I am and have always been far more satisfied with my existence than you people. Y’all seem miserable  

 

Years of dealing with depression and my divorce.

 

I'm ok now. Work from home, am single so am back to my playboy nerd life style (as noted by my handheld pc obsession), and between therapy, pristiq, weex, and welbutrion, >'m pretty good. 

 

Main concerns are mom's health and if I need to make like a ball and bounce in the event of our country's fall to fascism.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

No set number at all, but rather the prospective parent would have to sufficiently prove that they would be able to adequately ensure the overall well-being of the child at the moment of birth.  Naturally, events that occur post-birth cannot be accounted for, but that's where an actually "just" society would ensure that the child would be cared for in that event.

 

My "pro-abortion" position means that the prospective parent would be encouraged/incentivized to terminate the pregnancy in the event that they cannot provide evidence that they can support the child post-birth.  In essence, abortion becomes the "default" societal position rather than birth.

What if a lack of follow through results in a society that cannot sustain as “just” as you envision it?  

On the flip side, we also don’t have an example of a country that views abortion as default rather than the exception AFAIK.  I’d be curious to know why you think that perspective shift would be sustainable.

 

 

56 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

This is an important distinction for me when it comes to morally differentiating the "value" (economic or otherwise) between an unborn child and an individual who has already engaged with existence in this world.  I simply don't view them as equivalent entities from a moral perspective when it comes to matters of existence.

 

Human existence isn’t as much of a moral question as a material one, IMO.

[SaysWho?]

I think opposition to Build Back Better is a reminder about "pro-life" being pro children or even meaning pro-life:

 

Universal Pre-K?

Paid Parental Leave?

 

These two things would be a boon for families or single parents, allowing them to bond with their children once they're born and have access to pre-k education as a head start to k-12. Where was the opposition? A "pro-life" party and a "pro-life" West Virginia Democrat. 

 

Many pregnant women are on WIC a program literally named for Women, Infants, Children. How many times did Trump's budget look to cut it? As opposed to investments made by Biden and the Democratic Congress?

 

What party kept attacking the ACA, which allowed kids to stay on their parents' health insurance till they were 26 and got rid of the paperwork of proving they were in college to qualify to stay on their parents' insurance?

 

PBS/NPR gives public access to educational television and radio, especially PBS for kids. It doesn't go into reality TV or chase uneducational stuff like, say, The Learning Channel did. Who keeps trying to cut that every time they get power? Who is literally going after Sesame Street?

 

 

We're replacing lead pipes across America with the infrastructure act because poor areas have been stuck with lead-infested water. Where did all the 'no' votes come from? The "pro-life" party. Credit to a decent chunk of 'yes' votes on the R side.

 

Who spread conspiracy theories about vaccines and masks during COVID? 

 

What did pro-lifer Ted Nugest say to Trump supporters? I'd love you more if you broke Dems' skulls or something like that?

 

Hell, simply telling insurrectionists "We love you" seems like a weird thing for any pro-life person to do since once you're born, having an equal voice to others and living in a democracy where the loser, you know, loses seems optional now. 

 

 

Limiting unintended pregnancies is the pro-life position. That means access to contraception (which some Republicans IN POWER have expressed doubts that the Supreme Court decision that solidified that right was correctly ruled), and that means access to safe abortions.