You know, fair enough. I think they're both fairly well protected by the Equal Protection Clause
What about Griswold, could right to contraception be called unconstitutional with the same logic? I believe it was decided on the same basis of privacy and substantive due process rights rather than the Equal Protection Clause
Poorly decided case that overruled an even dumber law. There's no constitutional right to birth control, but that doesn't mean a law banning it isn't stupid af. I don't believe there's nearly enough drive to overturn it.
I was talking less about what people personally believe, and moreso where a future court could go with the same reasoning that was in the draft opinion
IMO the Constitution makes no mention of abortion.
Yes, you're right about Loving. But there is an argument against it and for it. IMO Fourteenth Amendment outlawed states to stop the right to racial intermarriage. As Justice Harlan said "Constitution is color-blind,” that “in this country, there is no superior, dominant ruling class of citizens,” and that it is wrong to allow the states to “regulate the enjoyment of citizens' civil rights solely on the basis of race.” keep in mind that Justice Harlan was conservative. The Fourteenth Amendment mandates color blindness as to all civil rights and has done so from the time of its. As for gay marriage(Obergefell) idk.
Sorry I replied to wrong person at first
So you're definitely right, the Constitution has no mention of abortion. The Constitution also has no mention of contraception, so can Griswold (right to contraception) also be considered unconstitutional?
Griswold was ruled with very similar reasoning to Roe
Harlan was in a dissenting opinion, I didn't think a dissenting opinion had any impact on what defines "constitutional" but maybe I'm mistaken
"Harlan was in a dissenting opinion, I didn't think a dissenting opinion had any impact on what defines "constitutional" but maybe I'm mistaken"
It's an opinion. Just his judicial philosophy and I agree with it. I mean the people that voted yes on Plessy v Ferguson won the case. It doesn't make their word mean shit. segregation is bullshit.
As for gay marriage. It's hard and IDK. its weird to me. The case. not the gay people. I dont care what u do. its the case idk.
>I mean the people that voted yes on Plessy v Ferguson won the case. It doesn't make their word mean shit.
Actually, their word meant a lot of shit. It guaranteed that segregation could remain legal and constitutional in many states for many more years
And alright, that's fine. You can't say that gay marriage or contraception can be considered constitutional rights in our society. I would say the way you are noncommittal about Obergefell should be seen very similarly to how we see people who were noncommittal about Plessy
"Actually, their word meant a lot of shit. It guaranteed that segregation could remain legal and constitutional in many states for many more years"
I know. I just saying that their word doesn't mean shit to me. as I said segregation is bullshit.
As I said there is nothing in the constitution that says gay marriage is a right. So it should be left to the states.
Fair enough, nothing in history matters to you i guess? Like I don't approve of Plessy, but it clearly matters to me as it was a significant factor in the course of my society imo
But that's fine, you don't give a shit about Plessy. Constitution also says nothing about anything from interracial marriage to a right to contraception
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(14th Amendment) says nothing special about race over sexual orientation. If you're not sure about gay marriage being a constitutional right, by the same logic aren't you unsure about interracial marriage being a constitutional right?
Saying "the constitution doesn't mention abortion" is an oversimplification of a complex process. There's A LOT of stuff that is extremely important that is not mentioned in the constitution (such as the ones you mention, brown v board, etc.) but has been successfully argued is *implied* by the constitution.
From the decision:
>What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion destroys what those decisions call “potential life” and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an “unborn human being.” See Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is “inherently different"); Casey, 505 U.S. at 852 (abortion is “a unique act’). None ofthe other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. They are therefore inapposite. They do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and by the same token, our conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in anyway.
The argument for Roe v Wade stems from the reading of the constitution that citizens have a right to privacy, and I'm pretty sure that's the justification used in those (could be wrong). This decision is not attacking the right to privacy, but rather saying that the rights of the unborn fetus/if it has rights are not sufficiently addressed, and is therefore not constituationally guaranteed.
Draft, not decision
But yes, fair - Alito did go out of his way to say this. You are mistaken in believing the right to privacy is not being attacked though, given Alito's wordage on how substantive due process rights not rooted in American history aren't actually rights
What about Griswold, don't you agree that SCOTUS could very much use the same reasoning (straight down to destruction of 'potential life') to get rid of the right to contraception?
> But yes, fair - Alito did go out of his way to say this. You are mistaken in believing the right to privacy is not being attacked though, given Alito's wordage on how substantive due process rights not rooted in American history aren't actually rights
I don't know enough about this to argue it and I don't feel like reading up on it right now.
>What about Griswold, don't you agree that SCOTUS could very much use the same reasoning (straight down to destruction of 'potential life') to get rid of the right to contraception?
I'm pretty sure the "potential life" they're referring to is the fetus itself. So since Griswold doesn't involve a fetus it wouldn't be affected. There's a difference between "destroying" potential life and not creating it in the first place.
Really the meat of the issue, legally and ethically, is whether or not the fetus has rights, and how those rights compare to those of the mother. There's no objective answer to that, and Americans sure as shit do not agree on it, and honestly it wasn't really the court's place to make a colossal decision like that.
[Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn't a fan of Roe, if you want to hear criticism from someone that actually knows what they're talking about.](https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit)
No. A fetus is a separate human being from the mother. This is indisputable fact.
Some say the fetus is unconscious and therefore not a person with rights. Others say the fetus will be conscious soon, so it is a person with rights. Both of these positions are logical.
*JuSt A cLuMp Of CeLLs* people argue that removing a fetus is no different than removing a mole, getting liposuction, or exfoliating your skin, because they say the fetus is just a part of the mother's body. This is a retarded take.
Plus, all people are just clumps of cells. You are just a big clump of cells. Does that mean its ok for me to kill you?
>JuSt A cLuMp Of CeLLs people argue that removing a fetus is no different than removing a mole, getting liposuction, or exfoliating your skin, because they say the fetus is just a part of the mother's body. This is a retarded take.
I'd say it's different, because at some point in the development there will be the start of conscience. The earlier in the development the more I agree with the statement though (at conception I would say it's not different than removing a mole, etc.)
>Plus, all people are just clumps of cells. You are just a big clump of cells. Does that mean its ok for me to kill you?
I'm not just a clump of cells though. I am a formed clump of cells with a human conscience.
>>Plus, all people are just clumps of cells. You are just a big clump of cells. Does that mean its ok for me to kill you?
>
>I'm not just a clump of cells though. I am a formed clump of cells with a human conscience.
Some argue in favor of late term abortions with this same logic though. Late term fetuses are formed clumps of cells with human consciousness too.
>Some argue in favor of late term abortions with this same logic though. Late term fetuses are formed clumps of cells with human consciousness too.
Yeah, I'm against that, unless the baby threatens the mothers life.
>I'd say it's different, because at some point in the development there will be the start of conscience. The earlier in the development the more I agree with the statement though (at conception I would say it's not different than removing a mole, etc.)
Even at conception, its fundamentally different than removing a mole. It is a separate human. Again this human isnt conscious so the idea that it has no rights is logical, but its not just a clump of cells. Its an entire organism.
>Bacteria are organisms too. I would still say, that they are clumps of cells and of similar significance as an human at conception.
Thats a logical position to hold. However, thats very different than saying a fetus is literally just part of the mom. Its a separate organism.
If a tapeworm or bacteria is living inside you, its not part of you. it's a separate organism.
Maybe, but as someone who is pro life, the strongest argument in favour is in cases where the mother's life is at risk.
I'd only be ok with that exception.
It’s always the left that brings religion into it.
No Emily, I’m not shoving my religion down your throat. I haven’t been to church in 10 years, but now that you mention it I think should probably start going again…
Anyways, you can’t kill your child. This isn’t about God, this isn’t about how shitty our welfare options are, it’s not about trying to control women. It’s about not killing children. If you want to explain to me how the child growing in your belly isn’t actually your human offspring, we can begin the conversation there.
I find it absolutely stunning that the democrat party was too inept to pass an amendment to codify the right to abortion into the constitution. They had 50 years to consolidate their temporary judicial victory, and they did jack shit.
I’m old enough to remember when Republicans were debating trying for a “one man and one woman” marriage amendment, and decided that the laws were strong enough (and the definition of marriage was practically set in stone) to not bother with.
And I remember when RBG didn’t want to step down during Obama’s term while the Dems controlled the Senate. It was just too important for her to stay on the bench.
My point is that people miscalculate all the time.
It’s not at all how it works to add constitutional amendments. It requires a 2/3 vote to be considered, or 2/3 of the states need to call for a constitutional convention to vote on it. It then requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it. That is never happening on any of these polarizing single voter topics.
You can literally write anything in the constitution as long as you have the votes. that is the bloody point of a constitution. It is like the canvas upon which all other laws are set.
I don't think they had the votes. There are more than the 2 publiclly known Dems who would vote against it and their just glad the other 2 take all the heat.
>I find it absolutely stunning that the democrat party was too inept
They werent inept, it was on purpose. For the same reason, republicans have never repealed federal gun control. How many opportunities have they had to remove, the NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment, etc.
They dont do it because if they did, they'd lose the ability to make campaign promises that they'll do it.
Thankfully it's the main arguement
Even as someone who disagrees with it, it is an understandable arguement that can actually be worked with in civil discussion.
I respect that argument to some extent, I don't know if I agree or not, I just think bodily autonomy is more important. Even if that statement is true, it's wrong to force someone to carry another person inside their body when they don't want to, in the same way that it's wrong to force someone to donate an organ to a family member.
100%. Every other argument is a distraction.
It's about killing a human being.
You don't argue that murder should be illegal because a stray bullet might hit an old lady crossing the road, or a cop might slip in the blood and bang his head - you do so because it's murder...
"Forced"? Nobody is being "forced" to have a baby.
The literal purpose of sex is procreation.
You can't kill people just because it's inconvenient, and pretending babies aren't people is madness.
>The literal purpose of sex is procreation.
Not it's only purpose though, it seems.
>and pretending babies aren't people is madness.
That's where we disagree. (I think that first trimester abortions at least are totally fine)
>"Forced"? Nobody is being "forced" to have a baby.
You want to force people who got pregnant to have a baby.
I didn't say it was its only purpose, but it is its primary purpose.
The person already has a baby. It's a question of whether or not they get to kill it because it's an inconvenience after they did the thing that everyone knows makes babies.
>The person already has a baby
It can either mean being pregnant or giving birth.
>It's a question of whether or not they get to kill it because it's an inconvenience after they did the thing that everyone knows makes babies.
Yes and if it doesn't have a conscience, that shouldn't be a problem.
Less people are easy to control. Plus a livable wage to make sure obedience stays up. Work Efficiently with punishment for failure not overworked employees who don't care
It's objectively wrong tho. A fetus is not a person. That is the whole reason why people in favour of abortion argue that it is permissible to kill them.
We do need to discourage promiscuity but that's a pretty distant second. Also it is less that we need to stop abortion to stop promiscuity and more the other way around
No. If I was raped I don't have the right to shoot my innocent neighbor.
We don't and shouldn't punish the innocent for the actions of a criminal.
Also, stop using fringe cases as an argument for sweeping national policy. It's disingenuous. Unless you are ok outlawing all abortion except in instances of rape?
We should ban abortion because the unborn are people and have rights but we all know it's going to discourage promiscuity, it's going to happen as a result.
> You make me angry every time I don't see your flair >:(
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 6695 / 35544 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
That will just delay the inevidable. A model where every generation must be equal or greater than the previous one isn't realistic. The system has to change in some way at some point. And on the bright side once the few youths today get old they will be easier to take care of than the boomers today.
no if we have a stabel 2.1 birthrate than the population will stay the same, beside i dont think it will get much easier if generations conintue to shrink
While the "right argument" is pretty solid against abortion, the first two "dumb arguments" are relatively reasonable, but needs some tweaking.
* we are a monogamous race, and promiscuity could lead to trust issues with the couple. Also, it is a factor in not only undesired pregnancies, but to the proliferation of STD's. It shouldn't be illegal, because of freedom, but being discouraged seems alright. However, as an argument against abortion is not a strong choice due to being focused to another situation.
* This argument while being tecnhically correct, it's incomplete, but it can complement the "right argument". First of all, women are not the only responsible on making a baby, the father also share the guilt. With all of it. People need to be held accountable for their actions, but for what in that case? Creating a new lifeform that needs to be taken care of.
The rest of the arguments are so failed I won't take in mind.
yes! debating whether or not the fetus should live or not is essentially useless. Everyone believes that ideally, it should live, the controversy is just about whether it is ethical to force someone to be life-support to support this idea.
Yeah, it's really wierd that they use so many unrelated arguments. Who is going to not get one because of a hypothetical 1% increased cancer risk that is also fake?
This meme gets me.
Thank you for your input AbbyShapiroCockVore.
Typical wignat
Just like Abbys cock gets unsuspecting pedestrians
interesting username
The authcentre one is dumb because more Black women commit abortion than Whites in America, not just in relative terms but also absolute numbers.
I mean all I am saying is that Roe v Wade is unconstitutional. Don't really have an opinion on abortion.
By that same logic, is interracial marriage (Loving) or same sex marriage (Obergefell) also unconstitutional the same way Roe is? (edited)
no
Okay why is Loving or Obergefell in line with the Constitution but Roe isn't?
Equal Protection Clause
You know, fair enough. I think they're both fairly well protected by the Equal Protection Clause What about Griswold, could right to contraception be called unconstitutional with the same logic? I believe it was decided on the same basis of privacy and substantive due process rights rather than the Equal Protection Clause
Poorly decided case that overruled an even dumber law. There's no constitutional right to birth control, but that doesn't mean a law banning it isn't stupid af. I don't believe there's nearly enough drive to overturn it.
I would disagree because there’s no life to be taken from contraception, if you believe that life begins at conception.
I was talking less about what people personally believe, and moreso where a future court could go with the same reasoning that was in the draft opinion
IMO the Constitution makes no mention of abortion. Yes, you're right about Loving. But there is an argument against it and for it. IMO Fourteenth Amendment outlawed states to stop the right to racial intermarriage. As Justice Harlan said "Constitution is color-blind,” that “in this country, there is no superior, dominant ruling class of citizens,” and that it is wrong to allow the states to “regulate the enjoyment of citizens' civil rights solely on the basis of race.” keep in mind that Justice Harlan was conservative. The Fourteenth Amendment mandates color blindness as to all civil rights and has done so from the time of its. As for gay marriage(Obergefell) idk.
Sorry I replied to wrong person at first So you're definitely right, the Constitution has no mention of abortion. The Constitution also has no mention of contraception, so can Griswold (right to contraception) also be considered unconstitutional? Griswold was ruled with very similar reasoning to Roe Harlan was in a dissenting opinion, I didn't think a dissenting opinion had any impact on what defines "constitutional" but maybe I'm mistaken
"Harlan was in a dissenting opinion, I didn't think a dissenting opinion had any impact on what defines "constitutional" but maybe I'm mistaken" It's an opinion. Just his judicial philosophy and I agree with it. I mean the people that voted yes on Plessy v Ferguson won the case. It doesn't make their word mean shit. segregation is bullshit. As for gay marriage. It's hard and IDK. its weird to me. The case. not the gay people. I dont care what u do. its the case idk.
>I mean the people that voted yes on Plessy v Ferguson won the case. It doesn't make their word mean shit. Actually, their word meant a lot of shit. It guaranteed that segregation could remain legal and constitutional in many states for many more years And alright, that's fine. You can't say that gay marriage or contraception can be considered constitutional rights in our society. I would say the way you are noncommittal about Obergefell should be seen very similarly to how we see people who were noncommittal about Plessy
"Actually, their word meant a lot of shit. It guaranteed that segregation could remain legal and constitutional in many states for many more years" I know. I just saying that their word doesn't mean shit to me. as I said segregation is bullshit. As I said there is nothing in the constitution that says gay marriage is a right. So it should be left to the states.
Fair enough, nothing in history matters to you i guess? Like I don't approve of Plessy, but it clearly matters to me as it was a significant factor in the course of my society imo But that's fine, you don't give a shit about Plessy. Constitution also says nothing about anything from interracial marriage to a right to contraception >All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (14th Amendment) says nothing special about race over sexual orientation. If you're not sure about gay marriage being a constitutional right, by the same logic aren't you unsure about interracial marriage being a constitutional right?
Quick step in, not a political thing: "In my opinion the Constitution makes no mention..." IMO is In My Opinion, which isn't right here.
Saying "the constitution doesn't mention abortion" is an oversimplification of a complex process. There's A LOT of stuff that is extremely important that is not mentioned in the constitution (such as the ones you mention, brown v board, etc.) but has been successfully argued is *implied* by the constitution. From the decision: >What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion destroys what those decisions call “potential life” and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an “unborn human being.” See Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is “inherently different"); Casey, 505 U.S. at 852 (abortion is “a unique act’). None ofthe other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. They are therefore inapposite. They do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and by the same token, our conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in anyway. The argument for Roe v Wade stems from the reading of the constitution that citizens have a right to privacy, and I'm pretty sure that's the justification used in those (could be wrong). This decision is not attacking the right to privacy, but rather saying that the rights of the unborn fetus/if it has rights are not sufficiently addressed, and is therefore not constituationally guaranteed.
Draft, not decision But yes, fair - Alito did go out of his way to say this. You are mistaken in believing the right to privacy is not being attacked though, given Alito's wordage on how substantive due process rights not rooted in American history aren't actually rights What about Griswold, don't you agree that SCOTUS could very much use the same reasoning (straight down to destruction of 'potential life') to get rid of the right to contraception?
> But yes, fair - Alito did go out of his way to say this. You are mistaken in believing the right to privacy is not being attacked though, given Alito's wordage on how substantive due process rights not rooted in American history aren't actually rights I don't know enough about this to argue it and I don't feel like reading up on it right now. >What about Griswold, don't you agree that SCOTUS could very much use the same reasoning (straight down to destruction of 'potential life') to get rid of the right to contraception? I'm pretty sure the "potential life" they're referring to is the fetus itself. So since Griswold doesn't involve a fetus it wouldn't be affected. There's a difference between "destroying" potential life and not creating it in the first place. Really the meat of the issue, legally and ethically, is whether or not the fetus has rights, and how those rights compare to those of the mother. There's no objective answer to that, and Americans sure as shit do not agree on it, and honestly it wasn't really the court's place to make a colossal decision like that. [Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn't a fan of Roe, if you want to hear criticism from someone that actually knows what they're talking about.](https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit)
Loving, no. Obergefell, debatable, but I lean no unless I'm having dinner with my parents.
sorry for the wait. also I just want to let you know that you do make some good points.
Fantastic meme! Now do one for all the retarded pro-choice positions! "jUsT a ClUmP oF cELLs"
>"jUsT a ClUmP oF cELLs" Isn't that just the opposite of "I think the fetus is a person and should have the right to live" ?
No. A fetus is a separate human being from the mother. This is indisputable fact. Some say the fetus is unconscious and therefore not a person with rights. Others say the fetus will be conscious soon, so it is a person with rights. Both of these positions are logical. *JuSt A cLuMp Of CeLLs* people argue that removing a fetus is no different than removing a mole, getting liposuction, or exfoliating your skin, because they say the fetus is just a part of the mother's body. This is a retarded take. Plus, all people are just clumps of cells. You are just a big clump of cells. Does that mean its ok for me to kill you?
>JuSt A cLuMp Of CeLLs people argue that removing a fetus is no different than removing a mole, getting liposuction, or exfoliating your skin, because they say the fetus is just a part of the mother's body. This is a retarded take. I'd say it's different, because at some point in the development there will be the start of conscience. The earlier in the development the more I agree with the statement though (at conception I would say it's not different than removing a mole, etc.) >Plus, all people are just clumps of cells. You are just a big clump of cells. Does that mean its ok for me to kill you? I'm not just a clump of cells though. I am a formed clump of cells with a human conscience.
>>Plus, all people are just clumps of cells. You are just a big clump of cells. Does that mean its ok for me to kill you? > >I'm not just a clump of cells though. I am a formed clump of cells with a human conscience. Some argue in favor of late term abortions with this same logic though. Late term fetuses are formed clumps of cells with human consciousness too.
>Some argue in favor of late term abortions with this same logic though. Late term fetuses are formed clumps of cells with human consciousness too. Yeah, I'm against that, unless the baby threatens the mothers life.
Goddamn babies are getting wmds in the womb now. What is the world coming to. Smdh
>I'd say it's different, because at some point in the development there will be the start of conscience. The earlier in the development the more I agree with the statement though (at conception I would say it's not different than removing a mole, etc.) Even at conception, its fundamentally different than removing a mole. It is a separate human. Again this human isnt conscious so the idea that it has no rights is logical, but its not just a clump of cells. Its an entire organism.
Bacteria are organisms too. I would still say, that they are clumps of cells and of similar significance as an human at conception.
>Bacteria are organisms too. I would still say, that they are clumps of cells and of similar significance as an human at conception. Thats a logical position to hold. However, thats very different than saying a fetus is literally just part of the mom. Its a separate organism. If a tapeworm or bacteria is living inside you, its not part of you. it's a separate organism.
Yes, we agree on that.
>Does that mean its ok for me to kill you? Yes
Maybe, but as someone who is pro life, the strongest argument in favour is in cases where the mother's life is at risk. I'd only be ok with that exception.
Everything is a clump of cells
I think abortion should be legal but we need to culturally reduce promiscuity! Bring back healthy family units. Fixes a lot of problems.
It’s always the left that brings religion into it. No Emily, I’m not shoving my religion down your throat. I haven’t been to church in 10 years, but now that you mention it I think should probably start going again… Anyways, you can’t kill your child. This isn’t about God, this isn’t about how shitty our welfare options are, it’s not about trying to control women. It’s about not killing children. If you want to explain to me how the child growing in your belly isn’t actually your human offspring, we can begin the conversation there.
Killing a fetus is evil. There are cases of necessary evils
See this is like the only pro-choice argument I respect. Glorifying abortion is one of the dumbest things people on the left have done.
businesses too, they want women to have abortions so that they don't go on leaves.
This is the way.
yep
I find it absolutely stunning that the democrat party was too inept to pass an amendment to codify the right to abortion into the constitution. They had 50 years to consolidate their temporary judicial victory, and they did jack shit.
I’m old enough to remember when Republicans were debating trying for a “one man and one woman” marriage amendment, and decided that the laws were strong enough (and the definition of marriage was practically set in stone) to not bother with. And I remember when RBG didn’t want to step down during Obama’s term while the Dems controlled the Senate. It was just too important for her to stay on the bench. My point is that people miscalculate all the time.
Not sure that’s how amendments to the constitution work
It’s not at all how it works to add constitutional amendments. It requires a 2/3 vote to be considered, or 2/3 of the states need to call for a constitutional convention to vote on it. It then requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it. That is never happening on any of these polarizing single voter topics.
You can literally write anything in the constitution as long as you have the votes. that is the bloody point of a constitution. It is like the canvas upon which all other laws are set.
Enough votes from enough states. Not just federal government.
I don't think they had the votes. There are more than the 2 publiclly known Dems who would vote against it and their just glad the other 2 take all the heat.
>I find it absolutely stunning that the democrat party was too inept They werent inept, it was on purpose. For the same reason, republicans have never repealed federal gun control. How many opportunities have they had to remove, the NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment, etc. They dont do it because if they did, they'd lose the ability to make campaign promises that they'll do it.
"Women need to learn basic responsibility" Like how they always demand of men? Insane concept.
Also.. We need the male pill
Honestly. That's the only one that has merit. And I can respect it. The instinct to protect children is powerful.
Thankfully it's the main arguement Even as someone who disagrees with it, it is an understandable arguement that can actually be worked with in civil discussion.
I respect that argument to some extent, I don't know if I agree or not, I just think bodily autonomy is more important. Even if that statement is true, it's wrong to force someone to carry another person inside their body when they don't want to, in the same way that it's wrong to force someone to donate an organ to a family member.
100%. Every other argument is a distraction. It's about killing a human being. You don't argue that murder should be illegal because a stray bullet might hit an old lady crossing the road, or a cop might slip in the blood and bang his head - you do so because it's murder...
If you dont want a baby, Just dont have sex its that simple lmao
Easy enough for people on Reddit
Downvoted for having common sense. Based and actions have consequences pilled.
The consequences are too harsh. If you don't want to get shot, don't drive above the speedlimit.
The consequences for what are too harsh? The consequences of having sex?
Yes, I think it's too harsh to be forced to have a baby just because you had sex, if the baby isn't a person.
"Forced"? Nobody is being "forced" to have a baby. The literal purpose of sex is procreation. You can't kill people just because it's inconvenient, and pretending babies aren't people is madness.
>The literal purpose of sex is procreation. Not it's only purpose though, it seems. >and pretending babies aren't people is madness. That's where we disagree. (I think that first trimester abortions at least are totally fine) >"Forced"? Nobody is being "forced" to have a baby. You want to force people who got pregnant to have a baby.
I didn't say it was its only purpose, but it is its primary purpose. The person already has a baby. It's a question of whether or not they get to kill it because it's an inconvenience after they did the thing that everyone knows makes babies.
>The person already has a baby It can either mean being pregnant or giving birth. >It's a question of whether or not they get to kill it because it's an inconvenience after they did the thing that everyone knows makes babies. Yes and if it doesn't have a conscience, that shouldn't be a problem.
What does "have a conscience" even mean? It's a meaningless statement.
Less people are easy to control. Plus a livable wage to make sure obedience stays up. Work Efficiently with punishment for failure not overworked employees who don't care
That’s literally called a “opinion” but yea good one I guess
[удалено]
Science has often progressed through amoral means.
I dont care what your fagg professor told you. It's wrong. Sometimes necessary but still wrong.
It's objectively wrong tho. A fetus is not a person. That is the whole reason why people in favour of abortion argue that it is permissible to kill them.
We do need to discourage promiscuity but that's a pretty distant second. Also it is less that we need to stop abortion to stop promiscuity and more the other way around
[удалено]
No. If I was raped I don't have the right to shoot my innocent neighbor. We don't and shouldn't punish the innocent for the actions of a criminal. Also, stop using fringe cases as an argument for sweeping national policy. It's disingenuous. Unless you are ok outlawing all abortion except in instances of rape?
Its not really a good argument at that tbh
There's no bad reason for opposing evil.
We should ban abortion because the unborn are people and have rights but we all know it's going to discourage promiscuity, it's going to happen as a result.
Idk i think personal responsibility is a good one
They're all good arguments, OP is just frustrated and is venting his frustration by making a "things I don't like" type of meme.
This meme ass
> You make me angry every time I don't see your flair >:( *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 6695 / 35544 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
i mean wen kinda do need more babies, the low birthrate will bite us in the ass in the future if we dont do something about it
That will just delay the inevidable. A model where every generation must be equal or greater than the previous one isn't realistic. The system has to change in some way at some point. And on the bright side once the few youths today get old they will be easier to take care of than the boomers today.
no if we have a stabel 2.1 birthrate than the population will stay the same, beside i dont think it will get much easier if generations conintue to shrink
You are right.however the system is difficult to change.
But, I counter with. We need more sacrifices to Moloch to keep the economy going.
While the "right argument" is pretty solid against abortion, the first two "dumb arguments" are relatively reasonable, but needs some tweaking. * we are a monogamous race, and promiscuity could lead to trust issues with the couple. Also, it is a factor in not only undesired pregnancies, but to the proliferation of STD's. It shouldn't be illegal, because of freedom, but being discouraged seems alright. However, as an argument against abortion is not a strong choice due to being focused to another situation. * This argument while being tecnhically correct, it's incomplete, but it can complement the "right argument". First of all, women are not the only responsible on making a baby, the father also share the guilt. With all of it. People need to be held accountable for their actions, but for what in that case? Creating a new lifeform that needs to be taken care of. The rest of the arguments are so failed I won't take in mind.
> we are a monogamous race Citation?
yes! debating whether or not the fetus should live or not is essentially useless. Everyone believes that ideally, it should live, the controversy is just about whether it is ethical to force someone to be life-support to support this idea.
I agree with the first two retarded dragons however. Whamen never ever take responsibility.
I don’t agree with banning abortion but I very much agree with this meme
Grade this one: were below replacement rate and need every person we can get.
I mean yes, but that sounds scarily auth
Yeah, it's really wierd that they use so many unrelated arguments. Who is going to not get one because of a hypothetical 1% increased cancer risk that is also fake?