Forums / Discussion / General

Hard to believe the American Right's spiel that their opponent are the only extreme ones, not them, when they've been so eager to crack down on rights with the landmark being abortion rights with Roe vs Wade.

Everything else and any other value seems to have been a smokscreen. With all the problems of the world, they've decided on re-opening debates on abortion and homosexuality. Theocrats and authoritarians, that's the agenda of policies that they consistently get passed.

It's only a prohibition for those without money anyway. That's the thing with the books and abortion rights isn't it? There's loopholes for anyone who can travel and buy books themselves.

That’s the whole point, they play up their culture war bullshit becuase it doesn’t change the money flowing up

I try to remain neutral, since I know how partisanship is killing the US and other democracies and I'm not fond of the democrats.

However, it's hard to do so with recent social events (Some of the US Right supporting Russia, prior presidents, social crackdowns, outright bizarre and worrying behavior such as the book burning and Carlson's movie), and the truth is that the US Right play the culture war game as well, and they've played it for a long-time. This common criticism of the US Left, the US Right does the same or even worse.

The American elites will still cynically vacation to their tax havens and to other democracies while they plunder their nation and restrict and deprive their citizens, just like what the Russian oligarchs have done.

The Democrats should have bit the bullet and taken out roe v wade themselves 10-12 years ago; back when popular support was peaking outside blue states, before it got whittled away by stories of overreach.

That way they might have been able to actually legislate something permanent as opposed to sticking thier thumbs up thier asses and just hoping the supreme court will magically never turn against them.

Live by judicial schenanigans, die by judicial schenanigans. Didnt think Kavanaugh had the balls.

.

Also, an unprecidented leak of supreme court documents set to energize the democratic base. Just in time for the midterms, How convenient

A repeal of Roe v. Wade would NOT federally outlaw abortion; it punts the legality of it to the states, hence why several states have trigger laws which go into effect the moment it's overturned.

I propose the following however, and would like to hear objections:

Abortion only be legal, unfettered, in the following three scenarios:

1) Carrying the child to term would result in the death of the mother (no, suicide does not count; however if you are suicidal because you are pregnant you likely fall into the next scenario);

2) The child was conceived without the consent of the mother (this is of course to include situations of rape and the coercion of the young or mentally impaired);

3) The child is not viable (the child is already deceased, or harbors a genetic defect which would result in it's death prematurely- by "prematurely" I mean before adulthood)

In all other situations, until demonstrated otherwise, when a man and a woman consent to sexual intercourse, they are making a conscious decision that their actions may result in a pregnancy, and should a pregnancy result from that conscious decision, they ought to be liable for the outcome.

I guess we've found out what a "woman" is all of a sudden, eh?

Also, an unprecidented leak of supreme court documents set to energize the democratic base. Just in time for the midterms, How convenient

Indeed, I can't help but find this awfully curious. Not only are the midterm elections approaching, but there's also the matter of the admin's most recent misstep (ie. the "Disinformation Governance Board"). It makes for quite the convenient distraction, don't you think? This leak really doesn't seem like a coincidence, even if the Supreme Court's discussion of Roe v. Wade was.

Fetuses kind of lack a brain and emotions, I am just saying

I just dont think fetuses have a ¨soul¨ basically they are alive but they are souless machinery inside a woman´s stomach cause they havent really grown a functioning brain yet

Were abortions only being demanded at points of development where the term "brainless" was still literal, well..

This would be a lot less contentious a topic.

And why should the offspring have to suffer for the parents mistakes?

I would argue that is all the time really, fetuses dont look sentient at all

Restrict abortion rights have them become equivalent to literal third world countries to own the libs.

How very droll.

Going to go ahead and repost:

Why is it the dems fault whenever it's been 40 years of republicans weaponizing a wedge issue, creating the concept of culture war, then politicizing judicial appointments specifically to undo set precedent so that a movement infamous for harboring terrorists and murderers can win?

In addition. "the right did something unspeakable. Must be a communist plot." how creative.

This relies on the assumption that the child will suffer; I don't believe we can readily make that assumption. Alternatively I could ask the opposing question: why should the offspring have to die for the parents' mistakes?

But even so, supposing that the child being brought full term would necessarily result in the child suffering, does this warrant death? Being alive in general entails suffering- so what is the threshold? At what point may we conclude that because the child will suffer X, it would be better off the child not be born?

I've made that distinction with severe genetic defects which I believe is a fair compromise; what do you propose?

The site here and there have a lot of very American style authoritarian conservatives. It's something I find pretty hypocritical considering the site's contents. Not libertarians, even for whom this subject can be contentious, or such as British conservatives, the ones who I know in real life are horrified.

Lots of differences in not only politics, but outright culture.

>Comment

Do you really want to go back on landmark court decisions for the US? There's quite a lot of them, some might backfire for the US Right.

It's also not other people's jobs to have to placate a hostile party, especially with the amount of disasters happening right now. After all, Trump supporters have tried to blame other people for their own hostile actions before in international politics. Never taking responsibility for any actions, as if you weren't the ones pursuing an agenda as well. That was one thing that I always hated about the Trump years, this goddamn neutral language. You're really going to try to praise Kavanaugh's bullshit as audacity?

It's right up the philosophy of "might makes right" . Had this succeeded without a leak, the American Right would have congratulated themselves, without any concern for any standards or morals. We both know that no one holds the American Right to any standards, least of all themselves.

How convenient that the US Right has been working to fulfill the agenda of Fundamentalists for decades now. Well, it's convenient for the party bosses sure, for the average citizen?

Not so much, I imagine it must be pretty exhausting to be anyone in the classes of those who are targeted by the repeal of Roe vs Wade and other such protections.

I have three arguments:

1) Overall Happiness: If you're a Miltonian, it's an action that generally decreases the happiness of those involved. Depends on the system of ethics that you take, but one has to acknowledge that forcing a child that was unwanted to come to term is not great for either the parent or child.

There may be cases where they eventually come to terms with this, but the same argument could be made of arranged marriages, and that is banned for arguments of personal autonomy. I would also say there's a difference between death and not being brought into this world at all.

If you truly believe that suffering is not a strong reason, then why did you make an argument for exceptions for rape (when some don't)? The suffering involved, then what's the threshold? Or is it in an issue of justice for the mother?

2) Societal: I've known teachers and others who work with children. There's a lot of kids who are not provided for, and Romania and other nations which had these kind of policies have generally had very poor social results from banning abortion (example Romania's orphanages, or the publicized deaths of women in Ireland and Poland).

In addition, I'd like to ask if you know the standards of the states who have provisions to illegallize abortion as soon as Roe vs Wade is gone? Can you guarantee they'll respect even the baseline conditions you set? This is going beyond a thought exercise, and if any of the negative effects such as black-market abortions, deaths, poverty or broken families happen, who will take responsibility for it? Certainly not the moralists around here.

3) Personal Rights & Bodily autonomy: Who gives a right to decide whether or not one can or cannot have an abortion? You, a priest, a senator, or the person affected? For those whose view is not societal or on overall good, but on the individual, how is this not an outrage?

I think this one in particular is galling because I was for vaccine mandates because of the societal effects and need in pandemics, but there are those who insisted on an ironclad view of personal choice. Fine, but when they are then okay with it being trampled on the subject of abortion, that's pretty hypocritical.

If one makes a compromise, I'd sincerely like to know what are the principles you're using for your arguments?

Maybe I should specify the specific hatred I hold for fundamentalist religious morals.

More like pointing out that the very same people who have been all about "Men can give birth too" and afraid to define what a woman actually is, are suddenly going ape shit about how anti-abortion laws are explicitly anti women and men shouldn't have a say in what goes on to a woman's body when it comes to reproductive rights.

We went from "birthing bodies" back to "women" overnight. And I find it hilarious.

Incidentally, if you must know, although I personally find abortion to be a heinous act, and unethical, I don't think it should be up to the state to define when a "person" is or isn't a person. Therefore the decision can only be determined by the mother.

As I already said, it's "restrict abortion rights to own the libs". I don't think that attitude is admirable. Are you happy then, that people have been "given" something to be genuinely horrified about?

With all my reservations of the Democrats and American Left, I am strictly on their side here, and I put the fault on the American Right and supporters. For all this site complained about SJWs and Culture wars, the Conservatives have given them something to chew on.

Congratulations on proving these "SJWs" or Activists right.

As some of you said, it is convenient for the democrats, the same way it's convenient for NATO that Russia decided to validate their existence.

Personally, I don't think it's any better that the support is based on political opportunism. Unethical? Oh, I could go on about what I think is unethical here. I wonder if you or a loved one ever find yourselves in the situation where you'll need it, will it become a situation of "the only moral abortion is my abortion".

>Are you happy then, that people have been "given" something to be genuinely horrified about?

No, of course not. Again, this isn't about owning the libs. I think Roe vs Wade should remain as is. What I am pointing out is that rumors of this policy change has, overnight, changed the discourse of the progressives (not the libs), on what it is to be a woman, and a man. Overnight.

>Congratulations on proving these "SJWs" or Activists right.

Right about what exactly? All this has done is prove to that all these SJW positions in regards to trans-identity, i.e. "trans-men are real men", "trans-women are real women", using languages like "birthing bodies", making the case that "men can birth children too", are paper thin, and when something like a threat Roe v Wade comes along, completely breaks apart. It's not the hypocrisy that I laugh at. It's the insincerity, the play-along illusion that they've shrouded themselves and everyone around them with. Pin-prick, and pop goes the balloon. Suddenly men are men and shouldn't have a say on the issue (A position I am somewhat in agreement with) and women are women.

>I wonder if you or a loved one ever find yourselves in the situation where you'll need it, will it become a situation of "the only moral abortion is my abortion".

Did you not read about the part where I said that the state shouldn't be involved in making laws around abortion? That ultimately women and women alone should be the ones in charge of making that decision? That even though I find the idea of abortion repugnant in most cases I still think it's not up to me to ever make that choice, and certainly not a politician, a bureaucrat, or anyone else for that matter.

Oh and by the way, I've come to that point multiple times in my life, and I was prepared to do drastic things for my own values.

Thank you for your critique Gilan. The main principles of my arguments are consent, responsibility, and preservation viable of life.

A person that does not consent to acts which could lead to the conception of a child has no responsibility to such child; ergo for a woman, she has no responsibility to carry it to term. Personally I find it unfortunate that the child must be terminated but consent supersedes preservation of viable life.
For example, if someone was going to die unless their bodily functions were attached to mine for about seven months, and then they were without my consent, I do not hold it as an immoral act to remove oneself from that person.

A person, however, that does consent to engage in acts which could lead to the conception of a child has a responsibility to that child, and one of those responsibilities is to preserve it's life.
For example, supposing I service a medical company which offers some ambiguous desirable service, with the provision that every time I use their service, there is a chance that I might be selected to have someone attached to my bodily functions for about seven months in order to save that person's life; and I am fully aware of this provision (that is, I have consented to these terms). I would hold it then to be an immoral act to remove myself from that person.

Now to your points.

1) I do not contest that, regardless of the system of ethics held, the bearing of an unwanted child is likely to be an immediate negative for both the parents and child. However this falls under the same criteria as that of suffering- unhappiness is an inevitable thing which I don't believe warrants termination as it is not a permanent condition. I also concede that there is a distinction between death and having never been born; however because I would assert life begins at conception, I would make the distinction here between that of death and having never gained sentience; even should you disagree with the premise of life beginning at conception, would you find this distinction acceptable? Alternatively, when do you propose life starts?

2) Those countries are also either orthodox Christian or Catholic which also ban the use of contraceptives, so I believe their issues stem from a combination of banning both. Unfortunately several states with these trigger laws are instituting blanket bans, so they will not respect the conditions I've set. I do not believe this is appropriate nor wise and I would hope that such laws will be contested and eventually repealed. As for the negative effects, I would say it is the responsibility of the people whom engaged in the behaviors which put themselves in those positions. That is not to say such people do not deserve help or assistance.

3) It ought to be a matter of law; though this would likely be superseded by cultural enforcement as most things are. In any case people indeed must have bodily autonomy; however bodily autonomy should not supersede responsibility brought on by oneself. For example, if I consent to do a job, I cannot claim bodily autonomy to renege on that consent; this position does need to be fleshed out.

I could summarize my motivating line of thought as such: Actions have consequences. One should avoid engaging in the actions one is not willing to face the consequences of.

I'm agnostic.

A child shouldnt be a punishment, they should be wanted

Indeed, a child should be wanted; but I do not believe it is correct to construe bringing a child to term as a punishment: neither physical consequences nor responsibilities are punishments.

If you have consented to risk pregnancy, you are consenting to the potential responsibility of caring for an offspring (even if such responsibility is only until the offspring is born, at which case that responsibility may be transferred; until birth however, that responsibility currently cannot be transferred given current technology).

One is free to take all steps needed to mitigate that responsibility from coming to be (in this case using contraceptives), but once that responsibility comes to be, one should not have carte blanche to simply change their mind.

If I play a weird lottery were instead of having a 1:1000 chance of winning a large sum of money, I have a 1:1000 chance of having to pay a large sum of money to an underprivileged person, but in all other cases I win a small sum of money, am I right to complain when I get unlucky? Am I right to complain when I can buy accessory tickets which bump that chance up to 1:10000? Or even 1:1000000? Am I being punished? Can I rightly say, "no, I don't want to pay"?

Are you talking about abortion or slavery? What year is this?

By forcing people to go through the consequences against their will you make it into a punishment

> Over educated women

> Over educated

> women being too educated nowadays…

hmmm…….sus

I’ve seen that parisite’s content, I don’t think it’s sus at all i’d say it’s explicit
his utopia is the us in the handmaid’s tale

So if you're comparing the abolition movement to anti-abortion extremists, that's a take so hot that it proves that our education system is, in fact, hell.

However, the slave-holding assholes do get along well with the forced birth crowd

First, let's just get this out of the way. the slavers struck first and often. Terror crowds straight up kept murdering people and burning down publishing houses. They used questionable laws interpreted by partisan hacks that were put in place as judges by virtue of the whiniest conservative assholes in the nation being given outsized influence on a federal level. Note that, even for Lincoln abolition was never a wedge issue on the reform side. It was for the conservatives.

The conservatives that spent the previous decades overturning precedent, forcing their will on other states in stunning hypocrisy, destroying political decorum often with violence (like the senate caning), and destroying the traditions that kept democracy going so that they could shove their pet issue down the nation's throat. To say nothing about the obvious if not oppressive link to radical, evangelical Christianity.

So if you wanted the link between slavery and abortion, you happy? It's that conservatives are assholes.

I was poking fun at your rhetoric

Read another book man, he's obviously the Thanos Voldemort of women's rights

This is still predicated on the assumption that a responsibility can be a punishment:

The action induces the pregnancy, and the pregnancy induces the responsibility, ergo the action induces the responsibility, so the responsibility is the/a consequence.

Which is what I am disagreeing with. In my weird lottery scenario, am I being punished if I decide I don't want to pay?

@Chewybunny

Hey, you do you and I agree with the asterisks that you added afterwards. I responded to your original statements, which I found less than laudable. I noticed that quite a few seemed were unwilling to take responsibility to what their "side" had done.

I just found it curious how it was blamed on the democrats, when beyond all the partisan bullshit, I could tell who was at fault.

>Activists being right

Once again, as I said, your first takeaway seemed to have been on how it "owns the libs". It doesn't matter, it was a pithy phrase, a meme.

That the conservatives were going after abortion, and the whole LGBT crowd? And books and who knows what else. There was a spot in 2016 where young conservatives in the US (and around the world) tried to go on a platform of being socially left, but fiscally right or that discrimination was a that thing of the past (or at least was exagerrated). That was how some would have said on this site and elsewhere anyway.

This is going back to decades old issues, which don't look like they're ever going away. These activists look less like the boy who cried wolf, and more like Cassandra.

>personal values

That's why I mentioned political opportunism, and I spoke with disdain of American elites who will feel free to travel to get what their countrymen can't.

Well, we can all see how we live by our values, that's more private. This whole issue is a nasty one.

Was easier than saying he’s a fascist except without the economic aspects, but I forgot we’re not allowed to reference literature

Hey, if the US hasn't banned those books in schools yet, I can regale you with passages from Simone de Beauvoir on abortion? There's even a comic at the about about how it was shamed, but everyone knew of politicians who preach morality, than are the ones who help get their mistresses abortion.

'Course are the girls Matt Gaetz accused of sleeping with even of age to get pregnant?

I disagree with you, and I'll likely make that quite clear shortly, but I want to thank you for being the best person I've debated/argued with on this issue. Laying out morals isn't easy.

My main arguments are also on consent, responsibility (for everyone) and preservation of life, but I think I went about it differently. I'll also add a bit on social responsibility, human rights and "common good", which is something I seem to use pretty often.

To go over the two scenarios you mentioned:

1)A women who was assaulted is already a victim, she had no consent. Her choice and the help she needs is paramount, and I really don't like the instances where other people try to guilt her for terminating any pregnancy that occurs.

2) I think this is a grey case. You cannot legally make someone sell essential organs, since duress and the amount of harm it would cause to your quality of life, and the potential of abuse makes it inacceptable. If this principle isn't respected, I can see some very dystropian issues of exploitation of the poorest.

Human beings have basic rights, there's a limit on how down you can tread before the responsible ine must be judged for crimes against humanity.

The same way an individual has a responsibility, the hospital has a responsibility, do you understand? Any harm falls on that instance, all of the blame should fall on the hospital head. I'll talk more of social responsibility later, in point 2.

Points:

1) I can accept the distinction between life at conception, that of never being conceived and that of a baby being born. However, I think that the issue then is less of when life starts, and of the life and happiness of the mother, and the issue of what seems to me a moralist need to cause others to suffer for their fault.

Let's face it, we shouldn't gloss over the details on the event of a mother that really doesn't want a child tends and how it tends to end in tragedy. The stress of a forced pregnancy can be harmful for both, which can terminate the pregnancy by itself, with harm done to the mother depending on how advanced it was. Then there are the issues of those who go for abortion in other ways, it's less likely that one will expiate on one's sins, and instead go for a blackmarket, which ks far more dangerous.

Add post partum psychosis and we would need a significant amount of manpower to avoid the worst fate to the babies born in these situations, which I will adress in point 2.

For point 1 however, I'll ask whether sadism and torture not a crime? (I mean the US did torture, as did other countries, but it shouldn't be accepted as matter of fact).

2) I think this will be my main point. I think too many judge from on-high, and assistance is mentioned as if it's charity. No, it is an obligation, those who chain others with responsibility must chain themselves as well. If one can't or won't, one shouldn't.

I didn't mention the possible consequences of filled and underfunded orphanages, abandoned children, rising crime, overloaded welfare, maimed women and deaths as a concern. If these occur, if these states do not follow your guidelines, or the guidelines of any of the politicians who refused to foresee the harm in it, they still bear the responsibility for it. One thing that also annoyed me is how many seem to take a neutral view, as if they are not responsible as well, or don't even mention, how the father and the whole structure around it will have to take responsibility, and the suffering involved. Will they be able to do so?

You are just a citizen, I guess, like me. However policymakers and politicians have to duty to understand and weigh in the consequences of their actions. If their policy causes unintended suffering, they are still at fault for incompetence. Anyone who engages in harmful policies for their own moral satisfaction must compensate if possible, if they can't or won't, they pay for it, which has included having their head on a pike.

This is also why I'm fired up about so many being detached, because honestly? I suspect some believe it won't really affect the people discussing it, just be a soundbyte in the background of a news if it goes bad. Unacceptable.

Too many bang on about personal morality, but don't see that their actions may cause more widespread social suffering, but don't or can't link it to themselves. Have you heard of the mass-graves of hundreds of children in Ireland. Who was responsible for this horror? The children, the mothers, or the catholics church? Including the brutality of the nuns running these institutions, who though near slave labour was an appropriate responsibility.

People are rarely brought to justice for the little white crimes that snowball into disasters bigger than any single criminal can do. Too many priests, preach then don't care on the effect of their sermons. Social ills are far worse for more people, and the perpetrators never take responsibility for it (perhaps because there's too many) and since they don't it's a duty to avoid causing them, to think carefully, because the negative effects are on the heads of everyone!

3) I think the idea of responsibility, bodily autonomy and such was addressed in point 2.

The irony is I'll use the same summary: Actions have consequences. One should avoid engaging in the actions one is not willing to face the consequences of. Everyone involved, we as humans are rarely neutral observers, and decision makers are not.

I really don't like religions which preach, but act separate to the consequences, which they often do.
EDIT: So, in a weird way if priests actually acted like priests, I wouldn't have as much a problem with them.

Incidentally, the idea of social responsibility is what frustrates me about climate change and the pandemic.

I think it's a big issue for most societies today, that it's so complicated that we can't really help causing these issues. Which is why when it's pretty obvious that there will be massive issues because of banning abortion, simple moralizing and pushing it all on the mother is not acceptable.

Ethics? Responsibility? These are and should be heavy concepts, too many who preach don't follow through.

Some things that people seem to ignore was the political clusterfuck that was the gilded age and the progressive era. To the point that after emancipation, women abolitionists became (if were not already) suffragists, and some of them were also part of the temperance movement and social purity/social hygiene movement. You can clearly see traces of modern-day liberalism (liberal feminism, birth control movement), cultural conservatism (modern day morality guardians) and far-right politics (eugenics) on that.

However it wasn't women who opened "Pandora's box" for abortion rights. The debate concerning the legality and morality of abortion was started by doctors, then a male-dominated field. And of course religion played a big part on it, but surprisingly, the main supporters of abortion legalization were protestant modernists (reminder: There was a schism between modernists and fundamentalists).

Now before I continue, I need you to understand that I'm not debating the validity of religious or theological ideas. But the role they played on the early abortion debates in historical context from a sociological point of view.

So, in the early 1900s, progressivism was becoming mainstream. And everybody (including religious figures) had their own ideas regarding how to make society better. Protestants had their Social Gospel and Catholics the Social Teaching. The protestant view was politically progressive, akin to modern socioliberalism, the Catholic view was, economically speaking, further left, as it addressed wealth redistribution by the state as moral on some cases, while the protestants tried to solve wealth disparities via the Gospel of Wealth (aka Philanthropy by the self-made rich). Protestants being closer to individualism and utilitarianism and Catholics closer to communitarianism and with a special focus on the sanctity of life. However, despite these differences, they had similar goals and similar tenets. Including abolition of slavery.

Now, the big debate on abortion and contraception wasn't fought over "Secular vs Religious" ideals, but between these precise differences between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics never fought the debate among the lines of "ensoulment" or even "sanctity of life", but among the lines of "natural law", big mistake IMO, as Protestants reject natural law. Thus, protestant doctors were more accepting of abortion, except fundamentalists, which sided with Catholics on the issues. While Jewish people sided with Protestants (Jews view ensoulment as irrelevant thus opening the door to the possibility of abortion)

In a nutshell: The early debate was not a "Medieval Religious Traditionalists vs Secular Progressives" at all. But a debate between Protestants (Social Gospel, early birth control movement) vs. Catholics (Social Teaching, early Pro-Life movement) on how to make society better. They succeeded on abolishing slavery so neither can claim descending from the abolitionist movement. And given that America's background is rooted in the Calvinist Work Ethic, which still influences American society (even the most secular and atheist sectors of society). Obviously protestants had the upper hand regarding abortion.

The one thing I have learned from all of this, with making abortion illegal all over the country at once like it was a teocracy and the whole very very sketchy and propagandish desinformation bureau, is that you cant fully trust neither the left or the right to preserve your freedom, you can really only really trust yourself when it comes to that.

Not that I am a libertarian or believe that you can trust people with too much freedom either but like… both sides have been showing their more Orwellian side in the US as of recent and I find it…not scary per se….just….sus

I mean yeah again not that the opposite is better, not that we should open the floodgates to chaos per se but…I wont lie… the future looks kind sus with the potential authoritarianism, but there is no magical saviour that can just come and protect you from this type of thing (or the opposite either), tbh you should not trust anyone too much not even me.

The potential repeal of Roe vs Wade & Ministry of Truth. Yeah, neither look good, beware those who're using the War in Ukraine to pass their shady agendas.

I am very happy to talk with someone who is cordial enough to maintain a discussion despite what could be deep ideological differences; the zeitgeist in the U.S, in-so-far as politics are concerned (and others but that's besides the point of our current discussion) has become bitterly sour, distrustful, and tribal, so it is a breath of fresh air to talk with anyone who doesn't immediately turn to ad-hominems or "gotch'as" when faced with an ideological outsider.

For your analysis of the previous two scenarios, I agree with (1); this is why I made exceptions for cases of coercion.
As for (2), the fact that it is a grey area is why it needs to be explored so that the fuzziness of the boundary can be more clearly demarcated. In the scenario given, the person maintains ownership of their vitals- this is not in question, nor ever should it be; the distinction here is that they are essentially being leased, so that for some time the person does not have complete autonomy over them, and during that time, the person's quality of life has been reduced. I can see how such a system may be abused, so I understand why you might find it wholly unacceptable. If it is the design of the system, I ask you to ignore such possibilities of abuse as we may assume, just for the purpose of my hypothetical, we lived in a perfect world for which no such abuse of the system can occur. However, if it is the concept of the system, that is, that there could exist a system in which the functions of your organs may, justifiably, be used by someone other than yourself and for which you do not have say for the duration of, then I have failed to construct an appropriate analog- whether I can construct such an analog that could persuade you I do not know. Is it the former situation, later, or have I misunderstood your position?

Now back to the points again:

1) I can understand your position here, at least a believe I do. As others have contested, in part the view is that it is a punishment for a woman, who does not want to carry a child, to carry a child; or if not a punishment, it inflicts undue suffering on the mother. Yes, torture is a crime (overt physical or psychological torture- at least, it is suppose to be; my government does not like living up to it's own standards), so I can see the connections one may make between torture and that of being forced to carry a child to term against one's will. I believe you have elucidated to myself that I do not view the potential negative aspects of pregnancy as undue; indeed, on reflection, I do believe in "due suffering" (e.g. the pain that comes from exercise, by exerting self-control and denying oneself an immediate satisfaction, by doing for others something that you would otherwise not want to do, etc) and that belief applies here, and that the application stems from my view of suffering as a result of responsibility being due suffering. I am not against what would alleviate suffering even if it is "due" (e.g. cream for sore muscles, chewing gum instead of smoking a cigarette, rewarding oneself for a kindness done, etc); however I am against the expunging of a responsibility that one has taken upon his/herself. Indeed, if that responsibility could be transferred to someone/something else willing to bear it, I would not find a problem as it is not expunged. If a woman could, at her leisure, have a fetus removed to be gestated in an artificial womb, I have no contention with that. The issue is, at this time, this transfer of responsibility can't occur.

To summarize my thoughts: I view the negative aspects of pregnancy as due suffering for a responsibility. I am for the alleviation of suffering even if it is due suffering. I am against the expunging of responsibility. I am for the transfer of responsibility to the willing. We currently do not have the technology which both alleviates the due suffering of a pregnancy, and transfers the responsibility to the willing.

2) Again, I can understand your position here- or again, I think I do. One thing I should specify because it may not have been clear from my initial post is that I hold the father to the same responsibility as the mother. And should it become a responsibility enforced by the state, I do not oppose state subsidies for pregnant women since pregnancy can be/usually is a major impediment to their productivity (to avoid abuse, the subsidies could be diminished per child and other factors which would need fleshing out). I also don't oppose the widespread, easy access to contraceptives- granted, I am soured to my county's "hook-up" culture, which I believe has severely undermined meaningful personal intimacy, and the widespread, easy access to contraceptives would likely exacerbate that culture- but should it prevent pregnancies in the first place, so that no abortion would even need to be performed, I believe it to be good. The negative societal effects are concerning because it is true: I do not want over-crowded, under funded orphanages; I do not want abandoned children; I do not want an over-burdened welfare system; I do not want women maimed; but must of all I do not want people to die- and that includes the child. I have not heard of the mass-graves in Ireland, and indeed I would lay responsibility on the church in-so-far-as it not only outlawed abortion, but also contraceptives; and this combination, or a combination of the illegality of abortions and the lack of access to contraceptives, breeds (no pun intended) the societal ills as outlined before; indeed your sentiment regarding the lack of accountability for those who make small decisions which snow-ball into grave ills is well shared, especially if the ills are well-understood and forewarned about. I understand this puts me into such a position: I am making a decision for which grave-ills, which are well-understood, can result, and this makes me a hypocrite. I would disagree however: I am not the Church; I am not preaching about the sins of the flesh (though I do believe self-denial is a virtue) and the inevitability of hell for those who engage in sexual pleasure without the aim to reproduce. I am not telling others that they can't have sex and if they do, that they can't use contraceptive. I am, however, trying to preserve life, and persuade others to do the same. As you say, it is a duty to avoid social ills and think carefully about decisions, so that they do not inevitably cause them. I fear that human life is losing value; in the US, states such as Colorado have made into law bills that, to my knowledge from the wording, permit the termination of a pregnancy at any time for any reason, and do not grant any form of protections to the life of the child, such as codify that a viable child, who could survive outside the womb and the pregnancy of which has been terminated, does not need to be kept alive (Colorado House Bill 1279). I believe that most women would not spend a whole nine-months pregnant only to, as contractions begin, declare they wish to terminate the pregnancy, and kill the child as a result; at this point I cannot differentiate such from infanticide. However, immoral people exist. I mentioned Slavery in another post in jest of another's rhetoric (which seems to have been received very poorly; oh well I still laughed), but it can be used here in earnest as an example. When slavery in the U.S. was legal, it was just that- legal. It was not mandated; one was not forced to own another human being, and as the abolitionist movement demonstrates, many people who likely had the means to own a slave did not, and even found the legality repugnant. But many others did not, and many engaged in that immoral practice because they could. Yes, slavery and abortion are very different subjects, but the former illustrates that there will exist people who do not view objectively immoral things as such, and legality will only ensure such things are acted upon. I hope my decision will remind people that human life is valuable.

To summarize my thoughts: The father is as responsible for the child as the mother; and I concede that the state, which would impose a pregnancy, should compensate the mother (or, in general, compensate motherhood). I don't oppose contraceptives and I would greatly encourage their usage whenever possible. I believe the societal ills you've outlined stem largely from a combination of abortion illegality as well as a lack of availability of effective contraceptives. On the flip-side of states instituting complete abortion bans, there are states which are instituting complete unrestricted abortions. I believe the adoption of the later undermines human life, and I hope my decision would counter this.

I would like to thank you again for engaging. It is nice to try to clarify my thoughts and hear opposing perspectives in detail. Please let me know if I've misunderstood any of your points so that they may properly be addressed.

Allow me to offer a perspective from medicine.

Texas's heartbeat law supposedly allows for an abortion if it is deemed "medically necessary". In actuality, anyone can be sued for any abortion, and they're stuck with the bill defending it in court. De facto, practitioners will not risk it. If you are familiar with how malpractice works, just the threat of a lawsuit will induce a chilling effect on procedures. It is for this reason many anesthesiologists refuse to use general anaesthesia on a pregnant woman, even if they intend to abort the fetus – on the off chance that the baby is delivered, the anesthesiologist can and has been sued for agreeing to put the mother under. General anaesthetics cross the placental barrier, and can induce defects in the developing child.

The concept of punishment will now extend beyond caring for the child – it extends to injury and death of the mother. HELLP, ectopic pregnancy, and the fact that pregnancy precludes many treatment options due to risk of injury to the fetus which may/may not be delivered. In effect, you are not just "punishing" the mother with responsibility. You are sentencing her to disability, illness, or death simply because she had the audacity to have sex, which is not only normal human behavior but one of the four key behaviors for all complex life (feeding, fighting, fleeing, fucking). The condom may have even broken. She could have been forced against her will.

It is far too grim a "punishment" in that regard. Healthy parts of normal human interaction should not lead to inescapable scenarios of death.

Thank you for your perspective. Just to clarify I am not for a unilateral ban on abortion; in a post above I outline three scenarios in which a believe abortion should be completely unrestricted; these include in cases of coercion/force and medical necessity.

I also do not agree with the Texas legislation's usage of litigation; I find it imposing, inducing of bad incentives, and it's probably also illegal as it gives 3rd parties standing when they are not genuinely an aggrieved party.

I'm also not against sex or the usage of contraceptives; however, I do believe people- both the man and the woman- need to be prepared to take responsibility for a life they have created, even if it is by mistake. The point of sex is, after all, to procreate; and the reason it feels good is to insure organisms do it.

Forcing a woman to bring a child to term when doing so would result in her death is condemning her to death which I do not condone.

May be getting lost in the noise but pretty much every involved party is expecting something to happen in Russia for VE day, at a time where we're seeing 5th column actions in Russia

In between Covid and now this I feel like the goverment might be gaining too much power

edit> I mean I am not in the US so this doesnt affect me too much but it does sound like a worrying trend.

There's a certain twisted irony in you reaching such a revelation only after the dissolution of a law which was decreed by 7 unelected men who overruled 50 democratic legislatures.

An act said 7 unaccountable appointees were never supposed to be able to do so in the first place.

> "I am very happy to talk with someone who is cordial enough to maintain a discussion despite what could be deep ideological differences; the zeitgeist in the U.S, in-so-far as politics are concerned (and others but that's besides the point of our current discussion) has become bitterly sour, distrustful, and tribal, so it is a breath of fresh air to talk with anyone who doesn't immediately turn to ad-hominems or "gotch'as" when faced with an ideological outsider."

Yeah, although we get what we put in in terms of debates. I can't blame people too much, this issue in particular is a rather emotional one, what with the issues on dignity, choice and the value of a life.

Anyone onto the points:
(1) The issue of coercion might be moot in face of abortion being made illegal, but it might affect how consent works, in general. It's something to keep in mind.

(2) It's a complicated scenario, so I'll try to be honest in saying that I'm not exactly sure why I'm hesitant. I think it's more the former scenario, the potential for abuse, but I'll try to address the second scenario as well. I think a good comparison would be surrogates, people who have consented to get pregnant, not necessarily as a way to have a child but as a sort of contract.

I think it's worthwhile to note that surrogates have a wide range of protections that pregnant mothers may not. I think the solution to potentials for abuses, are to ban the practice or to regulate it. I'm not saying that people who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term will accept becoming a surrogate, but it would make more sense to use the carrot more than the stick, if the idea of the life of the fetus/child is paramount (instead of just punishing the women, which I find morally objectionable, as I'll say in the next part).

(2.2)

1) Right, I think there's an issue of what is "necessary suffering". There's an issue of the "just world" fallacy, that 'actions will have morally fair and fitting consequences for the actor'.

The question is whether one is against abortion due to valuing the life of to punish the mother for being irresponsible.

The former I disagree with, but I can understand the difference in values, even though I think one must also be mindful of the value of the person who's pregnant, they're a person with rights. The latter I dislike, because I think it leads to an attitude of simply wanting to add suffering. Of all faults, I was always taught that cruelty is the only one that's unforgivable.

These may not be the only motivations, but they are the ones which are well-known. I think the ambiguity on where one stands may lead to a lot of hostility on this issue.

2) The father and the society around them definitely need to take responsibility. It's not just an issue, on abortion, I think that societies which criticize single mothers (or parents) but do nothing to help them are useless. Responsibility needs to extend to everyone involved, perhaps conservatives could re-learn the phrase " It takes a village to raise a child".

Hookup culture goes on another issue about the commercialization of sex and relationships, but I think that could be a topic for another post.

I think the idea that society needs to help parents, and counter any social issues they cause is a necessary one, and if you think that leaders should help remedy the negative consequences that they cause, I'm okay with that. As you said, you're an ordinary person, you're not responsible for everything, or at least, are only as guilty as I myself would be. That's the tricky part of social issues, the responsibility is so diffuse that you can't blame one person and just generally complain about a community.

As long as you acknowledge that part, I can't ask for anything more.

On the subject of immoral mothers, the problem is I don't think that any law on abortion would stop sociopaths. In fact, I don't like the idea of a mother being saddled with some live children she could terrorize either, the only real solution is to invest in social services like child protection services.

As for comparing it to slavery, eh… Comparing it to the issue might sidetrack it too much. For example, lot of the pro-choice see it as a way to chain down women, and the way striking down a federal mandate for the right of individuals for 'state rights' might make it very complicated fast.. Sorry, I don't think I can continue here, let's just say that legality and morality don't always meet.

My summary hasn't changed too much from last time, except to say that my more socialist leanings show in my insistent that the state at least fix the problems they cause. At the very least, those who try to rule others have a responsibility towards them.

I think we have different values, but thank you as well for explaining yours. If I misunderstood anything, or if you have anything I could have explained better, please let me know. I know I make a lot of typos while typing my comments out.

Since you're British, I think there's some irony I would like to point out:

1) The judiciary system in the UK to the best of my knowledge isn't elected, it's appointed, unlike even the US where there's some elections. In fact, there isn't even the same sort of committees for your supreme courts, like the ones in the US.

In fact, I think the Judges of France which are selected by their peers, so it's even less commission heavy. I think it's ironic, that this is a point a nationally minded American could have made about a dig against their system.

2) The UK is one of the most commission heavy republics of the West, to my knowledge ( a function of it's age and aristocratic heritage maybe). In fact it was ironic the UK went on about how undemocratic the EU was, when in truth electing parties who then decide on officials and PMs/leaders is very British.

3) The UK overrules other democratic legislatures. The Scottish for one complain about that often, and I wonder how the banging on about popular rule lasts when they're brought up.

I didn't mention the previously expressed disdain for rule of law and a support for crooked bastards 'loyal to the group', and how shaky the view the Republicans have on popular support with the amount of elections they have won with less votes, or have accused of being frauded.

We are not a republic, as much as some might have conspired to trick us into one.

Our supreme court is an abberation inflicted upon us by Blair's New Labour and sustained by the stupidity of the Tory wets. The devolved governments are the same.

The man's spectre will haunt us for decades, but it will be dismantled eventually.

Okay, Constitutional Monarchy with a lot of commissions. If you're talking about Napoleon, I think he wanted to just straight up invade. Unless this is about Cromwell or something.

Blair, the accomplice of Bush? Fuck him.

Trick is… not the best word for it. "Make commitments without consultation."

Blair signed treaties and agreements handing away various sovereignties of the nation to foreign bodies and orchestrated many drastic realignments of the nation's organs, all done in a distinctly republic-an direction.

Problem is most of what he did was done autonomously without referendum or making such promises during election, in some cases actually breaking said promises doing it; as with the Lisbon treaty.

Rather like roe vs wade; they were underhanded in getting their way and the resentment it accrued doomed it to being eventually undone. Had it been done it the honest way they might have succeeded in persuading everyone to go along with it.

As it is we are in a long and painful process of undoing, one which is following a cycle of "elect a new government to replace the previous one that tried to renege on the promise of undoing shit Blair did" repeat ad nauseum.

Parliament has decided it needs to be dragged kicking and screaming, but it will be done.

I am not feeling well today so I apologize in advance if I come off crass or scatter-brained. Also, since we are brushing against philosophy and are risking joint-writing an academic paper at this rate, if we continue this discussion much longer it would probably be best to move it to a new thread in Serious Debate.

(1) This is a bit of an aside but I think in the issue of pregnancy as a result of rape/coercion, there is an argument to be made that termination of the pregnancy is self-defense since the embryo / fetus can be considered a foreign body / extension of the attacker introduced by the attacker; so even should these blanket bans occur, I think with appropriate consideration and argumentation, termination in cases of rape may be preserved. Interestingly, the usage of self-defense as an argument puts conservatives on the back-foot since that is currently one of their major tenets, and forcing them to argue against it might undermine their own self-defense arguments against abortion.

(2) The idea of surrogacy had never crossed my mind; however it is a very close analog which may be used. Instead of the scenario I gave previously, with the provision being of the chance of being hooked up to someone to save their life, an alternative provision could be you are randomly selected for surrogacy (with the provision for men being the same as before), with these provisions being how the service is paid for. In this way, as far as women are concerned, it makes the scenario at least somewhat more plausible. In reality however, I don't think the concept of surrogacy could apply since it would then incentivize pregnancy without an abortion which would then likely lead to the social-ills you had outlined before. I think in this case, subsidies for all pregnant women would be a better carrot (with the limitations I had mentioned before applied).

(3) You are definitely right about a "just world" fallacy. It seems particularly cruel to say a person who, tripping as a result of looking away from their foot-path for just a moment, and hitting their head resulting in severe brain trauma, has received what I would call "due suffering" for having the audacity to- say- look at a bird.
However I am still not convinced that my notion of "due suffering" is completely devoid of merit; indeed, I believe you too must agree with it in at least some way and to some degree since it takes some form of personal suffering to adhere to social responsibility. It certainly needs to be refined as a concept however.
Reflecting, I have been wrong in my previous posts where I assert a responsibility cannot be a punishment. I figure, if I had a daughter and she were to kick a ball in the direction of my neighbor's house which errantly smashed my neighbor's window, the responsibility bestowed upon her of mowing my neighbor's lawn in recompense is a punishment, since the consequence of bearing the responsibility to mow transmits the message of "don't do that again," and the purpose of a punishment is to transmit such a message. I apologize to Kenetic Kups and tigre (Misspelled Tiger) for my denseness; I see their point now.
There is still an issue for me however, which definitely stems from valuing the life of the child, and I think then that the responsibility endured by the mother is an unfortunate consequence of that value since these two things currently can't be separated. Here our difference in values certainly clashes, and I believe this would require a deeper philosophical discussion to rectify or reconcile.

(4) I agree with this sentiment; in many cases beyond this discussion here, a failure of social responsibility from both citizens and the people who are supposed to represent them has resulted in many ills; which is strange since I would imagine a happy and healthy population would be a productive population which would be what those in positions of power should ultimately want since a productive population is taxable. I don't believe I have much more to say here regarding social responsibility since we seem to be either in agreement or not at odds.

(5) I agree that laws don't tend to stop sociopaths; the point is that making illegal the behavior means they can't just engage in the behavior without risk. You bring up a good point about these kinds of sociopaths who would then have these children under their control; I default to the solution you've provided since I can't think of an alternative remedy at the moment.

(6) I must apologize because I'm not making myself clear. I'm not trying to create a moral equivalence between abortion and slavery. If I was, I would have to be for a unilateral ban on abortion which I am not. The first time was a joke poking a bit of fun at what pinkiespy – goat spy had written as it read to me as something a pro-slavery legislator would have said and I thought it was funny (to pinkiespy – goat spy I apologize for that misunderstanding- I have a weird sense of humor). The second time I was using it as an illustration of a thing which was legal, and immoral people capitalizing on that fact; particularly in my concern for Colorado House Bill 1279 (which is now a law as I mentioned before), and the only reason I used it was because it was an easily accessible example that I think everyone here would agree with as immoral.

We definitely have different values, at least in some areas illustrated here, but the fact that we can still have a cordial conversation despite that is nice and gives me hope.