Should Abortion be Illegal?

[velvet steeple]

oh wait

2013

I didnt know this passed but apparently

[timber ravine]

it was already a thing since 1968

[velvet steeple]

17 states and the District of Columbia had a primary enforcement seat belt law covering all seating positions
16 states had a primary enforcement seat belt law covering only the front seats
17 states had a secondary enforcement seat belt law or no law

[timber ravine]

but it was argued in the Supreme court against states mandating them

and then they also added it to the federal law when the supreme court said it doesn't trump the constitution

[velvet steeple]

https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/seat-belt-laws

no

It was dubbed legal

[timber ravine]

what?

[velvet steeple]

by the supreme court

[timber ravine]

yeah what?

[velvet steeple]

laws regarding mandating seatbelts

[timber ravine]

i don't think rear seatbelts went to the supreme court

[velvet steeple]

but the feds never mandated it

no no

for drivers

[timber ravine]

...

[velvet steeple]

I know

I was just showing the states made the laws

the feds never stepped in

they only ruled it was legal to regulate it

[timber ravine]

Under federal law, all vehicles except buses must have a three-point restraint system. This means a lap belt and shoulder belt must be available – and worn – by all front-seat passengers.

cannot find the statute to make sure

[velvet steeple]

I saw this

but the worn part

is not true

[timber ravine]

no you are confusing it

[velvet steeple]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_laws_in_the_United_States

[timber ravine]

primary and secondary is not about wearing it

[velvet steeple]

look

[timber ravine]

Primary enforcement seat belt laws allow law enforcement officers to stop vehicles if a driver or passenger is not wearing a seat belt. Secondary enforcement seat belt laws require law enforcement officers to have some other reason for stopping a vehicle before citing a driver or passenger for not using a seat belt.

[velvet steeple]

yeah I know

[timber ravine]

it's about police stopping

[velvet steeple]

but look at new hampshire

[timber ravine]

sec

[velvet steeple]

no laws regarding seatbelts

[timber ravine]

but you can get stopped by marshalls

which is under federal

and many interstates are federal

and you can still get tickets

[velvet steeple]

where

[timber ravine]

this makes no sense

[velvet steeple]

what federal law says you can be ticketed for it

not state law

also welcome to my world

I deal with this legal BS every day

states making their own choices make my job so much tougher lmao

[timber ravine]

the thing is we are getting out of it. If the supreme court ruled it constitutional yeah sure the states can do whatever they want

but i cannot believe for a second it would be constitutional to enforce this in private property

(your private property)

[velvet steeple]

again it depends

it isnt illegal

If your abilty to do things

or your ability to live are not infringed

So you be agruing that its overreach

but thats hard to prove

without it directly violating your rights

[timber ravine]

if a child can shoot a rifle at the age of 7 in private property i doubt you can make it illegal to ride a bike without a helmet

[velvet steeple]

you cant shoot a rifle on public property anyways

no matter how old

not legally anyways

[timber ravine]

with exceptions

[velvet steeple]

what exceptions

[timber ravine]

national forrests?

[velvet steeple]

the police station LOL

[timber ravine]

sportts

[velvet steeple]

no

hunting is not legal in national forests

[timber ravine]

Target shooting is allowed on national forest or grassland unless restricted.

[velvet steeple]

true

I forget about target shooting

[timber ravine]

it's a sport 😂

and there is controlled hunting in some btw

[velvet steeple]

truw

[timber ravine]

at least down here in Louisiana

[velvet steeple]

but those are very regulated

[timber ravine]

you'd think

but honestly.. no

it's not illegal to shoot in public areas

it's illegal to shoot in restricted areas

restricted i mean that it says otherwise

[velvet steeple]

Ummm

Any city

[timber ravine]

well yeah but thats ordinances

not a federal law

[velvet steeple]

Thats my point

Yeah

Again you put to much value in the feds

The Supreme Court is usually pretty hands off

[timber ravine]

the thing is the constitution is above all

[velvet steeple]

Agreed

[timber ravine]

if i walk in the street with a rifle strapped to my back there is no state that can legally arrest me

[velvet steeple]

Yes

[timber ravine]

the supreme court would have a field day

[velvet steeple]

In fact most can

[timber ravine]

and they will but not legally they will lose the suit

[velvet steeple]

Open carry is only legal in certain stayed

[timber ravine]

didn't say pistol

[velvet steeple]

Doesn't matter

Also city ordanances

[timber ravine]

The Supreme Court's decision finding the government cannot prohibit the carrying of firearms in public for self defense

you'll never go to jail for it it's fully legal

[velvet steeple]

That doesn't mean open carry

[timber ravine]

those ordinances and state laws are unconstitutional and keep getting hit by the supreme court for decades

they change the wording but it's always losing

[velvet steeple]

I mean

[timber ravine]

In California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York, the Supreme Court's decision invalidates laws requiring permit applicants to prove they have a special need to carry a concealed firearm.

[velvet steeple]

Considering Cali has had an open carry ban for years now I fail to see your point

Not open carry again

[timber ravine]

lol the timing on that!

[velvet steeple]

True lol

[timber ravine]

conceiled carry can be more easily controlled than open carry

[velvet steeple]

But yeah open carry and concealed carry are different

[timber ravine]

open carry is way more protected

[velvet steeple]

Not really

Believe it or not

Which is silly

You would assume so

[timber ravine]

show me somewhere that open carry is illegal please

[velvet steeple]

But most states do not legally permit open carries

Okay one sec

[timber ravine]

federally it's 100% not restricted

whereas conceiled carry is

Nine states require a permit to open carry a handgun, while five states, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois and New York, prohibit it entirely

and all of them lost in the Supreme court

[velvet steeple]

https://images.app.goo.gl/cjE5RbXRsZfurAhq5

[timber ravine]

check this again

the decision is like a few motnhs old

June i think

[velvet steeple]

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/terminology/carry-types/open-carry/

This is from the Usca website

[timber ravine]

yeah restrictions you can impose to some degree

the reds are no longer reds

it's in the constitution

now personally i think guns should not be accessible but that's just me

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

[velvet steeple]

Man I want a gun to come in every cereal box yehaw brother

[timber ravine]

i have 6 close to me right now

i still think they shouldn't be accessible

[velvet steeple]

I disagree

[timber ravine]

i love shooting and i enjoy them

but i think it's part of the reason of the crime rate in the US

you can view it empirically compared to other countries

[velvet steeple]

Honestly it's mostly the grandfather clause

We have more unregistered guns than registered

[timber ravine]

now i do think taking them out now is not really a solution. i just think they should be taken out about a century ago

[timber ravine]

well you don't have to register them in half the US

[velvet steeple]

If all out firearms were registered it wouldn't be near as bad

That's my point

Ghost guns are serious issue

[timber ravine]

i can literally go to academy and get 20 new guns and be back home in 15 minutes if i want to

[velvet steeple]

Hell I own 1

There's not a person alive who can prove that thougj

No serial numbers no registration

Gun on paper doesn't exist

Yet it's totally legal

[timber ravine]

there are many

especially revolvers

[velvet steeple]

Agreed

[timber ravine]

but they are really bad

if they are truly ghost guns they suck

[velvet steeple]

Thats the main issue

[timber ravine]

you filed the barrel? 😂

[velvet steeple]

Didn't need to

It's not US made

I honest dont know if it still fires

It's in good shape

But hasn't been fired in a few years

You'll never guess who made it lol

[timber ravine]

ruger?

[velvet steeple]

No it predates ruger

Your on the right track though

German is the right nation of origin

It's a mauser

[timber ravine]

ew

[velvet steeple]

Lmao

This is the one

[timber ravine]

yeah fugyured

[velvet steeple]

Pretty neat

[timber ravine]

naji

nazi

[velvet steeple]

Practically useless

But aesthetic wise cool

And no

I'm not a nazi

It was captured

[timber ravine]

the gun is 😂

[velvet steeple]

My great grandfather took it from an officer

Oh yeah

For sure

It was from a Nazi officer

Not sure what branch though

My grandpa didn't know

[timber ravine]

probably still works

very dependable

[velvet steeple]

Yeah

But it's so old

It's untraceable

There's no way to even connect to it to my great grandpa

Let alone me

Hence why I said

Ghost guns are an issue

[timber ravine]

indeed

[rose prism]

Punishing evil actions is not only practical but also just (eg it restores moral order). Obviously we as human beings cannot be perfect judges in the same sense that God can, but in many cases we have ample evidence to prosecute criminals, and in these cases we have an obligation to do what is good, right and just.

[plucky oriole]

AGREED

[rose prism]

No true Christian would ever deny a criminal receiving the death penalty a chance to repent before they die

If someone chooses to not repent knowing their death is soon, that is their choice that sends them to Hell

[timber ravine]

No true Christian would support the death penalty also but whatever

[rose prism]

How so? I think that some crimes are grave enough to deserve it

I will gladly give people the chance to repent before death

[timber ravine]

"let he who is without sin throw the first stone."

[rose prism]

I think I interpret that passage slightly differently than you do. Eg. Jesus does not dispute the fact that the death penalty is deserved, rather he is being merciful to one who has broken the law.

[timber ravine]

if we had no sin then we could do it

[rose prism]

But Jesus has no sin, and yet He does not either

[timber ravine]

Jesus sinned

more than once

[rose prism]

where?

in the Bible as I presume you have some verse as citation

[timber ravine]

when he flipped those tables?

i think it's john

[rose prism]

how is that sinful?

[timber ravine]

can't look it up now i'm busy

[rose prism]

It's righteous anger

He overturns the tables of money changers who abuse the temple laws for monetary gain

[timber ravine]

it's violence

[rose prism]

Hitting a rapist to protect someone else is violence and it's also absolutely justified

[timber ravine]

where is it justified?

find me a passage

[rose prism]

Are you really arguing that we should not defend people from attempted rape

Like seriously, think that through

[timber ravine]

no i don't

the bible does

which i disagree with

[rose prism]

where would you cite that all violence is sin

?

[timber ravine]

psalm 11, proverbs...

throughout

[rose prism]

"him that loveth violence" ??

using violence to protect others is not the same as loving violence

[timber ravine]

show me that in the bible please

[rose prism]

Bro that is in the definition of words

"him that loveth violence" clearly refers to people who love violence

[timber ravine]

In the Bible, all violence is considered an offence against God and against humanity.

[rose prism]

where is that stated

specifically

[timber ravine]

In the Bible, all violence is considered an offence against God and against humanity. Scripture is full of condemnations of violence – time and again violence is associated with wickedness and condemned as “detestable to the Lord”

[rose prism]

nononono

[timber ravine]

psalm 11, proverbs 3, 10, ...

[rose prism]

you made a specific statement

"all violence"

[timber ravine]

i have never seen any passage saying violence is ok to protect

you show me

since you say that according to the bible it's different show me in the bible not whatever you make up to suit your beliefs

[rose prism]

exodus 22

2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

[timber ravine]

death penalty is retaliation also which is EXPLICITELY not allowed

[rose prism]

I think you misunderstand the death penalty

it is different than one man murdering a rapist in retaliation

[rose prism]

2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

Very clearly affirming self defense is okay

If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him
different translation

[timber ravine]

have to go for a bit sorry i'll text when i have some time

[rose prism]

all good

[rose prism]

Violence is not intrinsically evil, rather it is simply a fact of life. It is immoral to love violence, to become obsessed with it over God, but it has its place in the world.

[rose prism]

Also, the woman being stoned is an adulterer, not a rapist or mass murderer. I think the difference is significant for multiple reasons

[lilac pilot]

Oh boi what did i miss

I think you and @velvet steeple are both kinda wrong here. You are arguing about terminologies and definitions. But you both fail to recognise that the lingual definition is not strictly the same at the biological definition. So there are other languages aside from English, where the definitions are slightly different from the English one. The point shouldnt be about discussing the ''definition'' of the words as this changes from language to language, but rather the intrinsic meaning of the word e.g.; when you refer to an embryo or fetus, you refer to an unborn organism still in the womb. When you refer to a child you refer to an organism already born.

Well not really. At least where I am from, medical professionals can choose to not be involved with e.g. euthanasia and abortion as they are considered life-ending procedures. If they are your doctor, but refuse to carry out these procedures, they have to refer you to another doctor who is willing to do the procedure. But again, maybe this is different in the US

[lilac pilot]

Okay I can see your point of view. I kind of agree, I just think we have different understanding of what is good, right and just.

[lilac pilot]

This is very hard for me to understand. In what way is the death panalty different from murdering in revenge or retaliation? You agreed with me on the ''an eye for an eye'' statement which is pretty much the definition of retaliation

[crisp pond]

Question for pro choicers what makes a unborn human less valuable than a born human

[velvet steeple]

you said it

its not born

It cannot feel comprehend or even think up until at the earliest 14 weeks

Prospective life isnt a thing

[timber ravine]

Before birth you are not considered American yet therefore you have no rights, end of story 😂

[lilac pilot]

Counter question. What makes a human more valuable than any other life on this planet?

[crisp pond]

Larger range of conscious intelligence

You can feel more

Understand the world more

[lilac pilot]

Well

[crisp pond]

Well

[lilac pilot]

Same holds for an unborn fetus Vs grown human

[crisp pond]

Potential life

[lilac pilot]

Grown human feels more, understands more and has larger range of conscious intelligence

[crisp pond]

Under this logic a baby could be killed

[crisp pond]

Yep

[lilac pilot]

So therefore according to your own logic a humna is more valuable than a fetus

[crisp pond]

No

[lilac pilot]

I mean this is YOUR logic

[crisp pond]

Listen

I’m talking about other species

Not humans

[lilac pilot]

My point is

You probably think it sounds stupid

But that's how you sound to me when you ask why an unborn baby is less valuable

[crisp pond]

The unborn baby has value

Not as much as a full grown human

[lilac pilot]

No, you impose value on it

Either all life has inherent value or no life has

Not just unborn babies

That's what I don't get

[crisp pond]

Nah nah you have to think about what makes something valuable

[lilac pilot]

Hoe can you claim unborn babies are so valueble, yet give no fuck about any other life

Just inconsistent reasoning is all it is

[crisp pond]

First we define value then we can judge things on it
Humans put value on things that is different from being inherently valuable

[lilac pilot]

Yes and personally I think that is dumb and stupid

But I don't want to argue this again

[crisp pond]

What is dumb

and why

[crisp pond]

What about the 9month old baby

[velvet steeple]

Again proespective life isn't a thing

So I won't bother engaging because we will never see eye to eye

[timber ravine]

Never masturbate again you genocidal man! 😂

[crisp pond]

What is prospective life

[crisp pond]

Shut it 😂

[devout cloak]

Man honestly fuck it who gives a fuck about some unborn babies anyways

even if its right after they were born i mean shit if no one wants em

[rose prism]

because an ideal justice system is perfect. Individuals should not seek revenge on their own, rather moral punishment should be handed out by an ideally perfect system

Obviously we do not have a perfect system, which is why greater application of the death penalty in modern society is not necessarily something I would support

[unreal zealot]

Sperm do not have unique human dna nor the capability to become life. Its only once they meet an egg and form a zygote that we see unique human dna as well as something with the capacity for life.
Its inarguable life begins at conception.

[lilac pilot]

How would you define ''unique human dna''

I mean, if you would look at the genetic code of sperm you would easily be able to identify it belongs to homo sapiens species

so in that way it is both unique and human

SO i am a bit confused on what you mean when you say it does not have unique human dna

The difference between the dna in a sperm cell and a normal body cell is in sperm DNA is haploid (one set) whereas in body cells its diploid (2 sets)

but the chromosomes are nearly identical with the exception of X/Y

In fact, as DNA in sperm cells is made from a diploid human cell, the DNA in sperm MUST be unique human DNA

So yeah, if you say ''sperm do not have unique DNA'' to me it sounds like you have no understanding of genetics further than like 5th grade

Also, sperm has no capacity to BECOME life as it already IS life

How does that even make sense?

''its inarguable life begins at conception'' you say

well let me tell you, both sperm and eggs are living cells before any conception takes place

so i dispute that statement wholeheartedly

thats just stupid

[unreal zealot]

Sperms carried dna is directly from the man, its his dna, therefore not unique. Same as eggs, women aren’t killing thousands when they have their periods, eggs only contain her own dna. But when they meet and form a zygote that dna code is wholly unique to the new person, its never existed before and constitutes a new human being

[crisp pond]

sperms lol

the biggest issue for por choicers is the line

they all draw it somewhere else

at birth

[unreal zealot]

Human life, living cells have no inherent value, human life does. When I lose my blood its not like millions of little mes are dying.

[crisp pond]

8 weeks

5 months

but pro lifers are consistent

saying that a 9 month fetus is not equal to a 9 month born baby is illogical

how can the location a a baby determine life?

is it silly

then u have the argument of
oh well u cant force a woman to do somthing with her body

no

it was her choice to risk pregnacy

it is her responsibility to be safe

i can see the other side but i feel they are forgetting some important facts

flaws in their reasoning

[lilac pilot]

Yeah, this is sort of true, but sperms do not have the EXACT same DNA, hence the sperms is still unique

same for egg

[lilac pilot]

Well, but your OPINION is that human life has inherent value and sperm/eggs do not

that is not a fact

[unreal zealot]

If we are claiming human life doesn’t have inherent value then this isn’t a debate, abortion is fine, infanticide is fine, murder is fine.

[lilac pilot]

but those are vastly different things. One can belief life has no inherent value but still think murder and whatever is wrong

[unreal zealot]

How? If life has no value then how can you make a moral judgement upon its ending?

[lilac pilot]

What do you mean?

I didnt say life has no value

i said life has no INHERENT value

thats not the same

life is not valuable because it is life

[unreal zealot]

Its still the mans dna, and only half so not a recognizably human dna sample. Its not at all equivalent to a zygote

[lilac pilot]

its a circular argument to say life has value because it is life

it makes no sense

[unreal zealot]

Thats not my claim

[lilac pilot]

but you claimed they are exactly the same as the mans. If you want to get technical, thats still not the case

I just dont understand why a merged sperm and egg has more individual value according to you than the two separate

makes no sense to me

why does the act of conception suddenly change the value

weird

[unreal zealot]

I was simplifying it for sake of efficiency.

[unreal zealot]

Because the dna of the zygote is recognizably wholly human and wholly unique when compared to the parents.

[lilac pilot]

If it were the same, evolution would probably not bother with sexual reproduction anyway

[unreal zealot]

What?

[lilac pilot]

So the DNA determines whether something has inherent value or not

so what about a fetus of another animal

or is it just a human thing?

nothing you say makes any sense to me im sorry

[unreal zealot]

No, the humanness gives value. Life is valuable because human. A zygote is a new and unique human as shown in its unique, combined genetic code inherited from both parents. A sperm does not have that quality and neither does an egg. A sperm is not going to grow, an egg is not going to grow, a zygote will.

[lilac pilot]

I just dont agree that ''humanness'' is what gives value

human in my eyes is not different to any other organism

and the fact that you do confuses me

[timber ravine]

Does mixing a soerm cell and an egg in a petridish suddenly give value and rights?

[unreal zealot]

if it creates a viable zygote then yes, and I would call that an unethical experiment. Rights don't exist though.

[unreal zealot]

We are literally just getting into opinion takes then.

[lilac pilot]

Its not an experiment, its something that happens to get women pregnant who cannot get pregnant naturally, its called in vitro fertilization (IVF)

[unreal zealot]

Thats a lot different then just mixing shit in a petri dish and calling it a day

[timber ravine]

it's unethical cause God didn't do it

we take God's power into our own hands i guess

[unreal zealot]

Thats not my claim, its the assumption that they are going to do nothing with the zygote once its created

let it die essentially

[timber ravine]

they make a bunch

to be safe

[lilac pilot]

Its not different because that is exactly what was described, mixing sperm and eggs to artificially fertilize

[timber ravine]

even god (nature) does that. With all the miscarriages, unviable babies etc... is it only unethical when humans do it? or is God also unethical?

[unreal zealot]

omg, why is this the issue now? Can we discuss something with it falling back onto God?

[timber ravine]

if we are not talking about rights and law what is this about?

[unreal zealot]

He did not specify in the example. This is entirely semantic and unproductive

[timber ravine]

only other alternative is god. when logic is not part of your issue it has to be faith

[timber ravine]

yeah cause i didn't need to specify

no difference. you don't care about the reason or effect. you have explained your ethical compass and that shouldn't matter

[unreal zealot]

Geezus. Alright if your going to be a complete dickhead about this then theres no reason for me to respond in good faith either.

[timber ravine]

you have said you only care about the act itself in regards to ethics

[timber ravine]

how am i being a dick? i'm adopting your ethics to discuss it...

if i go with my view it won't lead anywhere so i'm thinking through what you've explained you believe in the past

[timber ravine]

as for this i specifically asked to avoid that when i made the forum. No morals, ethics or religion... it's a LAW question

[unreal zealot]

I was making a critique of the notion that sperm is in any way equivalent to a human zygote. I was not attempting to make an ethical or legal claim about abortion in general, merely the idea that sperm being ejaculated is equivalent to the act of abortion in that it sees a termination to potential human life.

[lilac pilot]

I know it sounds ridiculous, but to me the idea that a single conceived egg has the same inherent value as a 9 month old fetus is similarly ridiculous

[unreal zealot]

It doesn't sound ridiculous, I can understand where you are coming from. "Of course a tiny clump of cells lacking any features of a recognizable human to the point where it doesn't even have a brain doesn't have the same value as a fully formed baby that is now breathing outside the womb". Its a natural viewpoint to take, but the issue is in the definition here. Humans can exist without normal features without having their humanity questioned. People can have their faculties compromised and still be attributed the right to life (I'm paraphrasing, this isn't a commitment to rights nor are rights the question at hand). Babies are born months early and still go on to live into full adulthood. Creating a consistent definition of human life is only possible if starting from conception as otherwise their are caveats, counter-examples, or messy conclusions.

[flint breach]

Are they any women in this discussion? I feel any discussion on abortion without women is more incomplete that it should

[crisp pond]

Morality is a question for all people of all genders

[flint breach]

Yeah, but we're missing an important part of the picture. We can talk all you want about it, but any conclusion or idea is biased because we're lacking relevant information

[lilac pilot]

I mean, sure if you assume that human life has inherent value that is given by the fact of humanness, it makes sense you would put this boundary at conception. Though,the whole concept of ''human life is inherently valuable and more valuable than anything else'' is in my opinion not true at all and therefore the whole point you are trying to make is non-sensical to me

We dont agree on the idea what the value of human life or even life in general is so we will never agree on this

[lilac pilot]

No according to these people a lump of undiversified cells has more value than a woman because it is still ''pure''

From that logic naturally it follows that women don't have a say in this

Rather, it is the womens fault for getting pregnant in the first place

Damn when I say it like that this sounds a lot like victim blaming

[flint breach]

I could argue that any women have a more "pure" humanity than a fetus just because they have an identity and are integrated in the society

[flint breach]

I mean, what fault? It's literally pointing fingers at someone that's being denied medical help. An unwanted child is something that usually ruins a women's life, more than a mens life, because of the stigma and the misogyny associated with it

It's just Christian guilt trying to pin the sin of "having sex out side the marriage" on the women and not on the men, it's hypocrite in it's core

[lilac pilot]

Oh I fully agree with you. I was just reiterating the ''arguments'' some other people used to justify banning abortion.

I think abortion should be available for anyone who needs it. If you are christian and you are opposed to abortion, then don't get one, its as simple as that. Dont force your religious beliefs onto other people who do not belief in the same religion. Imo its dangerous to make political decisions based on religious arguments anyway

but i am sure religious people disagree

[shadow bolt]

This is the biggest argument in favor of pro-choice I've heard. Because this does not have to be true. So you NEED something in place to help out.

[lilac pilot]

But it is still a bad argument. For example, if you go skateboarding and you break your ankle, should you be denied medical care because it was your own choice to risk an injury?

[shadow bolt]

I mean, if the medical procedure was to kill someone to steal their ankle to replace yours... Then I can see the argument. So there is a proper argument in there somewhere.

[lilac pilot]

Well, only if you belief that abortion kills someone

[shadow bolt]

And that's a proper argument that I can't disprove.

[lilac pilot]

It only makes sense under the assumption that 1) an aborted fetus was a someone and 2) abortion is murder

if either of those is not true than the statement makes no sense

[shadow bolt]

Since if you base the argument on religion, it is completely logical.

[lilac pilot]

Yeah but I dont agree with basing your argument on religion in any case. Sure there may be very good reasons to be pro-life but religion is not one of them imo

But then I get back to: you should not force your religious beliefs on someone else who may or may not has the same belief system

in my opinion, for religion to be a good argument for anything, first you must show that your specific religion takes precedent over any other religion, which is just simply impossible. From my viewpoint as someone who is not religious, all religions are equal. So why should we adopt beliefs from e.g. Christianity over e.g. Hinduism or Old Norse religion?

And from my personal experiene (although you may disregard this as I have no way of knowing whether this is just me or whether this is a thing throughout society) a lot of harm is done to non-believers in the name of religion.

So although I respect it that you form an OPINION based on religious beliefs, it should never be an ARGUMENT to back the opinion

I hope that makes sense

It is just not fair to any non-religious person to go ''well these are my beliefs and I am going to force them on you''. Otherwise you will go onto a slippery slope and end up like the christian version of Saudi-Arabia

[flint breach]

Exactly, if we were talking about a theocracy then the religion argument might have sense, but since the separation of church and state and because of that the separation of church and law is so important then the religious part shouldn't be anywhere around this conversation

[unreal zealot]

Really like how y’all strawman every pro-lifer as being sexist victim blamers without any evidence to show that. You see one person bring up responsibility even if its unwanted and assume that he must only mean women and not the man, that he has something against premarital sex, and that hes punishing women for “sinning”. Considering TruthPowers is a raging atheist and very clear about that every single one of those is ridiculous, but even without that knowledge its a complete leap in logic and just completely unproductive to assume such vitriolic and uncharitable things.
I can tell you right now, I and people I know who are christian and pro-life do not hate women who have abortions. Its quite an understandable procedure and while its horrible, that doesn’t mean we can’t empathize. I doubt the parents are doing it willy nilly “oh Imma murder my child.” Its a huge decision and its sad that is is ultimately chosen but given how shit our societal infrastructure, healthcare, and economy is its quite understandable. I blame the governments failure to its people for abortion more than women or men (who do hold just as much responsibility for the action as women).
Now there are of course women hating bigots out there against abortion and you have every right to call them out. But do not just assume that is every single pro-lifer nor use that tiny minority as a cudgel against any opposition. Its just bad faith argument and does nothing for the issue.

Being against abortion is not inherently religious. You can value life outside of religion. You can recognize the standard basis that life begins at conception without asserting God. You immediately jump to “oh this is religious nonsense so I’m not even going to consider it.” Thats going to get you no where if you want to attempt proper discourse or understanding which is ultimately going to be the crux of an issue like this.

Abortion itself isn’t really the issue here. The question “should we legalize abortion” is ridiculous and pointless. The question should be “why are we seeing upticks in abortion? Why is this such a huge debate?” Cause when you begin asking these questions you get at the actual societal issues behind them. Abortion is just a symptom of how our system treats its women and poor people. When you cannot safely raise a child in basically any circumstance, your government has failed you. We literally have an economic barrier to parenthood, and then at the same time terrible sex education and management for the lower class. Abortion, then becomes the only viable solution. As inflation rises and the US government continues its economic oppression of its own people abortions rise.
But pay attention, cause we aren’t discussing rapidly rising inflation, shitty healthcare both normal and maternal, systemic discrimination towards women still left behind from decades ago (why the fuck are they charged more for their basic health products? It’s ridiculous), or any other major societal issue, just all of these things symptoms: abortion. Thats very calculated, this whole debate is a pageant show used to keep the status quo in place. You can’t fix an issue by discussing its symptoms, your just going to get nowhere, and abortion being as vitriolic as it is, its gonna suck up all the attention and energy, allowing the status quo to keep on keeping on in the background. Its classic US politics.
This is why I’ve largely pulled out of the abortion debate (or at least trying, its hard when such bad faith arguments are still rampant) cause we need to bring attention to real issues. I will say it now and say it again. I do not give a shit about abortion, lets talk about real issues instead.

[lilac pilot]

I think for once I almost fully agree with you. Maybe I am assuming too much that people argue from religion, when they are saying things I really cant find myself in. Your message made me realise that there can be a whole bunch of societal factors contributing to forming an opinion on this topic. As I have never lived in the US (where most of this is about), I can't actually tell whether an argument is based on religion or societal experience. Anyway, some arguments I hear are just very flawed and although I agree that everyone can have their own opinion, I have a very hard time accepting flawed arguments to support an opinion. Thats why I said, there probably are many arguments in favour of pro-choice, but religion isnt one of them

Although arguably religion is part of society (especially in US), so it is hard to see them seperately

[lilac pilot]

For ''outsiders'' that is

[flint breach]

Although I could agree that we have a problem on how the government treat the poor and marginalized people, that's not the reason why discussing the abort is important.
The illegalization of abortion is not a US problem or a Now problem, it have always been around, it might be related to many other problems, but it's rooted on taking women's right from them.

And at the end of the day, this discussion is about when the life begins, to the state is the first time you register your child, give them a name, present them to the state, that's when the state take awareness of this human being, but before that, are the parents who give this fetus an identity

[flint breach]

And answering the question "why is this a huge debate?" I mean, the SCOTUS took away people's rights, that's something that could have severe impacts in how the US take in consideration other rights, and sure the abortion is a big one, but what's next? Gay marriage? The legislative arrasament of trans people? Is something deeply worrying.

And maybe you're right after all, all this is a symptom of the decomposition of the american society

[flint frost]

Lady here 👋🏻 I feel like I made a mistake engaging earlier in this thread because of a comment I read, but the conversation really didn’t lead anywhere productive

[unreal zealot]

I’m not debating rights cause that goes back to legality which has nothing to do with morality. You can think its wrong women don’t have the choice to choose but that doesn’t mean anything legally speaking.
All I’m saying is we have societal causes behind abortion, and since I am against abortion, it is most logical to address those causes instead of talking about abortion itself.

[lilac pilot]

I think having a debate about womens rights and forcing your opinion on others is very much a moral question rather than a legal one.

[rose prism]

Women disproportionally watch pete play online competitive risk far less then men... there are millions of pro-life women. Whether the arguments presented are presented by a man or a woman should not matter.

[unreal zealot]

sure, but thats not what I'm debating nor asking for.

[lilac pilot]

Oh than I misinterpreted your statement

[unreal zealot]

all good

[lilac pilot]

Yeah I think that abortions should never be illegal to answer the ''main'' question. Though after doing a little bit of research I found out that the US has a LOT more than the country I live in, where it is fully legal and mostly socially accepted. So then we go back to an earlier discussion we had and also to what @unreal zealot is saying, that prevention of unwanted pregnancies (for whatever reason) should be the core issue, not the legality of an abortion itself.

[rose prism]

One big thing that no one has yet mentioned

In terms of implementation/practicality

If we make all abortions illegal except in cases of rape

It incentivises people to lie about being raped to have abortions

Actually although important it's somewhat less relevant

/shrug

[unreal zealot]

I mean yeah basically. You fix the main causes behind abortion, and you lower abortion numbers to the point where its hopefully no longer seen as necessary. Better childcare services mean more likelihood to prefer adoption, better maternal health care means less fear of risk or of actually performing a surgery rather than just an abortion, better sex education means less unwanted pregnancies, and a guarantee for economically being able to handle parenthood means less likely to reduce abortion to an economic issue. We go for the root causes, we fix the issue

(Also we vastly benefit society but whatever)

[shadow bolt]

Absolutely. If the world was a perfect place, abortion should be illegal in my opinion. However, the world is not perfect, and abortion helps remedy one of the issues in this world.

[unreal zealot]

I don’t see how having basic and achievable infrastructure is equivalent to perfection. Its a miracle the US is still functioning with just how terrible its ran. Don’t discount options simply because we don’t have them, that just further condemns us to the status quo and the festering issues of our time

[crisp pond]

This is a silly statement

I said it was her choice to risk pregnancy

Not that it was her choice to birth a child

One could argue by risking pregnancy she is choosing to give birth but that’s not true

It’s irresponsible to get pregnant when u aren’t fit to give birth

[crisp pond]

Bias is not a result of lack of information

And if u want to make that argument anyone can say that about any moral choices

That there is always something we don’t know

[flint breach]

See why it's important to have women in the argument? You're talking that women might fake a traumatic event to try to deal with an horrible problem, without considering the taboo and problems that women already have getting the police to actually do something about rape. But that's a whole other conversation

[flint breach]

But still there, with all the people having a what they need, still there will be unwanted pregnancies, it's how contraceptives work, they're not 100%, rapes will still occurs

So yeah, lets give all the people the resources to live, will there be less abortions? Yeah sure, but that doesn't justify the illegalization of it.

[flint breach]

Yeah but I'm not asking if everyone hace a quantic physics phd, I'm asking for the side of the population thay actually suffer from this.

[crisp pond]

I understood what you were saying

My point remains

[flint frost]

That would take one seriously messed up human to fake a traumatic event like rape

[timber ravine]

well yeah but Truth even though against abortion said that is should be legal, which is the question at hand...

[rose prism]

If a couple has sex they are accepting the "risk" that the woman might become pregnant. Both parties are responsible for the upbringing of the child. If you use contraceptives, you are accepting the risk that they don't work, and are responsible for the child in that case. Actions have consequences, and sex directly causes pregnancies--if you don't want the responsibility of a child, don't have sex.

Rapes/unsafe or illegal abortions will still occur

-Yes, and we should act to minimize both.
-Even though illegal abortions will occur, they will occur far, FAR less often than abortions do now.
-Even if a rapist puts the responsibility of a child on a woman unfairly, it does not make it okay for the woman to deny the child a future life.

[flint breach]

Following that same argument, If you accept to drive a car, you're accepting the risk of having an accident, and because of that, you should not receive medical care

[shadow bolt]

I've got serious issues with that final line.

[rose prism]

Understandable but I disagree

[flint breach]

And you mentioned something really important, no matter how many laws are approved, the illegals abortions will continue to happen, putting desperate women (sometimes rape victims) in a hopeless position

[shadow bolt]

Everything else makes sense to me though.

[flint breach]

Because they are dangerous, and expensive, and have a higher mortality rate

[rose prism]

A:
It's not okay to rob and kill someone even if you're genuinely in need of money.

It's not okay to murder a human being just because you're in a bad situation and your actions will make your life easier

[shadow bolt]

Yes, that's what my opinion is. Some people have no real choice. And in those cases you should really REALLY do something. We can argue what we should do, either allow abortions or make parental care so absurdly good that it's no longer a burden. Or something else of course.

[rose prism]

Right. Which is why we should open pregnancy centers across the country

(er, even more of them)

I'd be 100% okay with paying taxes for that

[flint breach]

And that's the really interesting argument, when does the life start. Because a fetus it's not a human being

[rose prism]

So when does it become a human being?

When does it have moral value

Because an infant has moral value, yes?

It's not okay to murder a human baby even if it would make your life easier

So when does the line cross from taking away living human life being okay to it not being okay? The burden of an alternative is on you

Because I have provided one: human life begins at conception

And obviously sperm and eggs by themselves are not human beings, but somewhere along the line, they turn into a human being

as in, they have moral value at some point. This is not decided by government- (eg: government can make slavery legal but it is still morally wrong.)

[flint breach]

Several countries have different stipulations, I have a stronger opinion on this matter but it's irrelevant. Here's when a doctor would be useful but the first 12 weeks of pregnancy the fetus is still a bunch of cells semi organized

[flint breach]

If you don't trust the government's opinion, maybe we should listen to the person that usually perceive the "moral value" of the fetus more up cluse

The mother

Either way, we're talking about legality, so literally the government is the one taking the decision lol

[rose prism]

By that logic, slavery should never have ended. And I'm pretty sure you don't support slavery, so let's not go there

[flint breach]

Well, the government (or the people, as you wish) ended slavery but whatever reason, so I don't see your point

[rose prism]

The government made decisions because of the opinions of the people, the abolitionists

So we should similarly oppose abortion

(Abortion is either morally wrong or it is not morally wrong)

[rose prism]

Would you be ok with your mother aborting you?

[flint breach]

I mean, I trust her judgment, don't you trust the judgment of your mother?

[rose prism]

You think it'd be ok for her to have killed you???

????

Because that happens to many unborn children

They deserve their lives just as we do

[flint breach]

This is so Kantian, and those ideas are already refuted, we live in a society with different persons and everyone have a different morality, trying to push yours over a group of people is borderline theocracy

[rose prism]

Bruh you straight up dodged my question

Oh I did forget to answer one of yours. I'll do that

[flint breach]

It's not murder, I didn't existed at the time that she could have aborted me

[rose prism]

You would not exist now though

Are you actually okay with that?

When do you think you started existing

seriously, when did you start existing? The moment outside the womb?

[flint breach]

I would not be ok with that because I wouldn't exist haha, but I would not be ok if my mother is forced to continue a pregnancy thay she doesn't want

[rose prism]

kids can't remember lots of things, the fact that you don't remember your own birth doesn't mean you didn't exist then. You were almost entirely the same being one second before you were born

And two seconds, and a minute (biologically I mean)

[flint breach]

That's what I'm asking, you said that you believe thay live starts at conception, I think that by this point you get thay I have a different conception about it

[rose prism]

Obviously the fetus that you were at one point in time

Existed

So when did you become a human being?

Because I think you became one at conception

[flint breach]

Legally, if the lungs touch air for the first time

[rose prism]

Not legally

[flint breach]

Before that, it's a fetus

[rose prism]

Yeah but legality isn't decided outta thin air

[flint breach]

That's why abortions and murders are two different things

Legally, I'm saying

[rose prism]

It's not decided by legality though. It'd still be wrong to murder you when you were one second still in the womb

[flint breach]

We're discussing the illegalization of the abortion bro

[rose prism]

Yeah

laws should be moral

"should" abortion be illegal

Slavery was at one point in time legal, that didn't make it okay

[flint breach]

Not always, as you said

[rose prism]

They aren't always moral

They always SHOULD be moral

Which is why when we discuss change

We should talk about what are good and bad changes

Do you think there's a moral difference between killing a baby one hour before it is born and one hour after?

Not legal, forget laws

[flint breach]

So you want to go to the ontological discussion, I mean it's an interesting exercise, a futile one, but I'm bored haha

[rose prism]

Let's say abortion was illegal. I assume you'd still support legalizing it?

[flint breach]

Yes

[rose prism]

Why

And not because laws exist

[flint breach]

Because a fetus it's not a baby

[rose prism]

Ok so when is it a baby

Not legally

[flint breach]

When it's born

[rose prism]

It's exactly the same biologically

[flint breach]

Nope, it's united to the mother

[rose prism]

Did you know that late-term abortions rip out babies piece by piece

Wrong reply* but

[flint breach]

Yeah, to take out the fetus

[rose prism]

These fetuses can feel pain. They have toes and fingers

They are exactly the same biologically as ones that just were born

[flint breach]

It's horrible, but so it's the self defense.muder, and it's legal

[rose prism]

The baby didn't try to rob you

Or kill you

Why is it okay to take away it's life, excruciatingly painfully?

[rose prism]

Legality doesn't define morality

[flint breach]

No, they are united to the mother, they haven't breath, their lungs aren't develop, they haven't seen light

[rose prism]

Again, slavery wasn't okay when it was legal

Ones an hour before birth?

[flint breach]

Ok, so you think that self defense murders are inmoral?

[flint breach]

How do you know it's painful? It's painful to the mother, the fetus doesn't feel anything

At that point I mean

[rose prism]

Actually, we know it is, this is a scientific fact

They can feel pain at ~20 weeks

[flint breach]

Ok, so before that an abortion should be a painless procedure right?

For the fetus, the mother of course still feel a lot of pain

[rose prism]

They're moral in the sense that they're justified. I was talking about how slavery was legal for a long time

[flint breach]

Ok, let's keep talking about morality

[rose prism]

Just because something is legal does not mean it is correct

Ok?

You've debated me on this 5 times so yeah let's go back to that

[flint breach]

Do you think it's moral to force a child to end her raping pregnancy?

[rose prism]

Can you rephrase that I'm not sure I understand what you're asking

[flint breach]

Is a child is raped, and she get pregnant

[rose prism]

Do you mean force a child to go through that?

It's not morally good. But it's better than denying another human life

[flint breach]

Yeah sorry, that was weirdly phrased

[rose prism]

All good

[flint breach]

But you're causing more pain

[rose prism]

Pain is not the only consideration

Legality does not define morality. Slavery is wrong, whether just by popular opinion or by objective fact. We agree on this, right?

[flint breach]

I don't think it's morally right to put a child trough hell just because you have a different opinion on when a life begins

[rose prism]

Ok when does life begin then

Without using the word "legal"

Actually

Let me rephrase that

When does the human being become a person? Because both sides agree a fetus is at least alive the same way a tree is alive

But at some point it becomes more than that, it becomes a human being

When?

Unless it doesn't become a human being, in which case it'd be okay to murder born babies

[flint breach]

Mm, idk this is tricky, because I think morality is formed somehow by the mix of popular discussion. What Im sure is that it's not an objective truth

[rose prism]

What's your opinion then

And why

if you can't even form a counter opinion on the topic, (or at least haven't yet) why are you so opposed to mine? *Kinda rhetorical but whatever

[flint breach]

A human being becomes a person when it forms interactions with others human beings, a fetus become a human being when it's separate from the mother at birth

[rose prism]

Ok, nice. Let's go from there: why does location matter?

The baby is biologically almost exactly the same

[flint breach]

It's more than location, the fetus need the mother in a celular level

[rose prism]

Not right before birth, though

And after birth it still needs the mother

[flint breach]

Yeah, before birth the fetus is still connected to the mother

[rose prism]

(or another human, whatever) to not die instantly from cold/hunger

[flint breach]

But anyone can take care of the baby, not just the mother

[rose prism]

Ok but it still needs help

It's not viable

[flint breach]

Yeah, we all need help sometimes

[rose prism]

right. So viability doesn't determine human being-hood

[flint breach]

Nope

[rose prism]

Ok good, many people do argue that so just wanted to make sure

[flint breach]

A person could be connected to a machine to live, that doesn't make them less of a person

[rose prism]

Right

So why does it being the mother specifically matter?

[flint breach]

What do makes less of a person is not having experience literally nothing

Like, not breathing for the first time, or still haven't seen light

[rose prism]

Literally they can move around inside the womb

They have nerves and other senses

Some people are blind

[flint breach]

But they breathe

[rose prism]

Some people need machines to breathe

[flint breach]

But they are doing it

[rose prism]

Why does experience determine human being-hood?

[flint breach]

What else would?

[rose prism]

The fact that you exist

From conception, as one organic human life

Babies are born as early as 6 months and survive to adulthood

[flint breach]

But what do you call existence?

[rose prism]

Bruh

[flint breach]

Like, a bunch of cells in a petri dish is existence for you? Because you can make that happen in a lab

[rose prism]

Yes, petri dishes exist

[flint breach]

I mean, you're the one talking about "existence mean human being-ness"

A bunch of cells in a petri dish is a human being?

[rose prism]

Right, and you agree it is a concept that makes sense

Human life exists from conception, this is scientific consensus. There isn't consensus on when this becomes a person of moral value but that's not a scientific question

[flint breach]

Nah I don't agree, a bunch of cells doesn't make a human being I'm sorry

[rose prism]

You agree that human being-ness makes sense

As a concept

Because people have it

Eg it's not ok to kill alive adult human beings

But it is ok to kill unborn fetuses

[flint breach]

Oh, yeah totally, and that's something that we have at birth, every human being have had a birth

Exactly

[rose prism]

We're running in circles here.
You're a human being as soon as you are a single human life

[flint breach]

Separate from other human life? Sure haha

[rose prism]

You are seprate though. You're not just an extension of th

The mother*

You're created inside the mother and rely on her

And connected to her

[flint breach]

Are you separated or connected?

[rose prism]

I'm not connected to my mother

[flint breach]

Oh, so we find a difference between fetuses and human beings

[rose prism]

I think they are still human beings but sure

[flint breach]

We're not created btw, but that's a totally different topic

[rose prism]

Conceived

Whatever

[flint breach]

I told you, the ontological discussion was fun but futile

It's literally running in circles

That's why they kill Socrates

[rose prism]

I think it's nonsensical to think that a cord determines whether removing a human life is okay

A human can be born at 6 months and survive without a cord

Some are born at 9 months and still have it until birth

Obviously it's biologically necessary

[flint breach]

I mean, I'm a radical, but the general consensus about this is that around the 12-18 weeks of pregnancy the fetus should not be aborted. Don't take my word for the Numbers but it's before the 24th week

That's when they start talking about viability

That you were talking about before

[rose prism]

fun fact, all but one US senate democrat voted to support abortion up until the moment of birth

[flint breach]

Support is a strong word

[rose prism]

*actually it was two I think

[flint breach]

I think like you, the government shouldn't have a say on this, only doctors, a late abortion could have a serious risk on the mother

[rose prism]

I think the government should have a say on it, it should be banned

[flint breach]

And no legal medical staff would put a patient at risk

[rose prism]

Look up the Abortion on Demand until Birth act

[flint breach]

But what happened with the good old "the government allowed slavery, they are bad"

[rose prism]

Bro I never said that

I said that they do not define morality

But just laws are good

[flint breach]

Any normal country have normal laws, it's a shame that in the US they are literally stepping back the right of women just because

But yeah

It is what it is

[rose prism]

I think government should uphold moral laws but government is not infallible in its reasoning

slavery and abortion are wrong, so the government should ban them

They're not wrong because of the government

[flint breach]

I think that "uphold moral laws" is an easy way to introduce severe reductions on civil rights

As abortion rights

Almost every country banned slavery, but more and more are legalizing abortion

[rose prism]

darn cultural revolution and all ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Ok yeah I don't think we're going to get anywhere else lol

Thanks for the discussion o/

[flint breach]

Why is that?

Have a good night

[rose prism]

[For anyone else who wants to read more than just our opinions, here ^^ is a button to jump before this debate lol]

Because from what I've seen you hold that a cord determines whether it is ok to remove the life in the womb

We could go to the root of that argument later but idt we'll get anywhere morally

[rose prism]

oh dang theres a lot of stuff I didn't see up here.
to the above question: yes

lots of things are good... what's a good way to put it, emotional evidence? empathetic evidence? for why we shouldn't allow abortion, especially late term ones. as in, we can relate to consciousness, pain, feelings, things that we naturally associate with life and personally experience ourselves, that we know babies experience. but I wouldn't say these are the causes of personhood on their own

depends on the definition I think, but my first example would be that comatose people do not have consciousness, while they still can recover from comas after months

the thing about comatose people is that you don't know if they will wake up, whereas unborn human lives consistently turn into human babies after 9 months into pregnancy

[velvet steeple]

except for miscarriages

complications from birth

or really a multitude of other reasons

also

this conversation is really sortve pointless as you cannot really sway the minds of people on either side of the fence

however my personal opinion is that abortion sould be legal though I don't think its moral personally im not a fan of government intervention in healthcare

thats my main reason

same with genital mutilation while I think its a poor choice its at the end of the day a medical decision

which allowing governments to make a choice in healthcare is huge huge amount of power to grant

I dont think anyone here likes abortions its just a decision of whether allowing the government to intervene is the right one personally im on the fence of I dont like the government deciding what health choices I make

[rose prism]

Don't get me wrong, I do care about the issue but I also enjoy debating--I find it intellectually stimulating. It helps me understand the points of view from people who disagree with me, as well. I don't think the mindset "if I haven't convinced anyone that my beliefs are correct, the debate wasn't useful" is super helpful

[velvet steeple]

no but making it into a mudslinging match isn't either

I go into a debate looking to find common ground

[rose prism]

Actually, I love the polarity

[velvet steeple]

if there is none to be found the debate will 90 plus percent of the time result in mudslinging

but im also in politics so I know better than to speak on such subjects

unless its from a middle ground perspective

[rose prism]

I do not think that there is ever truthfully going to be common ground, because if you have my pov (unborn human lives all have value etc) you cannot morally accept abortions, ever

[velvet steeple]

truth

though again

[rose prism]

I don't think you should have to have common ground to have a debate civilly

[velvet steeple]

what are your thoughts on my post

agreed I just find it keeps things civil

without any common ground debates will often spiral out of control

I use common ground to keep my opponents on subject

and prevent mudslinging

but thats my style

some political officials who im sure you could name a few use the opposite approach

[rose prism]

I think the above debate was definitely civil. I don't expect anyone else to be happy about my opinion from their pov, and there should definitely be a little bit of tension

[velvet steeple]

agreed

im not saying otherwsie

but when your holding an open mic debate with hundreds of people

you need common ground

well not necessarily but you get my point

what did you think of my opinion

did you find any common ground?

[rose prism]

one sec, I have a response but I have to go rn

[velvet steeple]

thats fine

I may be off because it super late for me depending on how long it takes

but id be happy to respond tomorrow

[rose prism]

1: abortion should not be considered healthcare
-this is a decent citation, even just the first page statistics: (https://www.usccb.org/resources/Abortion is Not Healthcare final.pdf)
2: abortion does not deal only with the woman's body but also the unborn child. therefore it does not fall under the same category as other independent choices

[velvet steeple]

birthcontrol does the same

also it is considered healthcare so what should and should not be considered is irrelevant

this also does reaffirm you don't believe in government control over healthcare regardless of whether we agree on the semantics

you could also argue that vasectomy's and the cutting of the fallopian tubes does the same

the point in being the child cannot consent yet so the power to control healthcare is vested in the parent not the government and I do not believe it should be changed

[rose prism]

1: I'm against birth control too! :D
2: I think I kinda object to this point but its inconsequential
3: I'm against vasectomies too! :D

[velvet steeple]

okay so yeah im not gonna bother

[rose prism]

will say: I don't think that vasectomies should be outright illegal like abortion

[velvet steeple]

your do realize you are putting life above life right

[rose prism]

wdym

[velvet steeple]

many mothers would die

[rose prism]

then make an exception in those cases

[velvet steeple]

you can't

you made abortions illegal

[rose prism]

we can!

bruh I already said there should be exceptions in these cases

[velvet steeple]

unless you put exception into the law

[rose prism]

ok lets do that

[velvet steeple]

how so

what constitutes an exeception

the mothers life is in danger?

[rose prism]

yes pretty much

[velvet steeple]

if so who defines in danger

the doctor?

multiple doctors?

[rose prism]

the doctor/mother. it should be a last resort

[velvet steeple]

okay so the doctor decides anyone who wants an abortion is in danger

who enforces that

the government monitors every attempted abortion?

[timber ravine]

Wow

[velvet steeple]

you cannot possibly allow for exempions

because it would be impossible to enforce

[timber ravine]

Are you also against masturbation and sex if not aimed to have a baby?

[rose prism]

*or family union

not saying it should be illegal in the US

[velvet steeple]

recursion

[rose prism]

a: abortion is not often needed in health care

[velvet steeple]

930,160

thats the number of medically reported abortions

that is

thats in the US alone

2021

and contrary to what you may think

per capita the amount of abortions per 100 pregnancies is actually lower than before

because contraceptives and safe sex are more often than not preformed

the point being

abortion is all or never

if exceptions are granted

[timber ravine]

Exactly

[velvet steeple]

ok????

what does that prove

oh sorry wrong person

[timber ravine]

Make contraceptives illegal and abortions would skyrocket

[velvet steeple]

he doesnt want abortions

so its fine

[timber ravine]

I’m not trying to prove anything just reinforce your point

[velvet steeple]

I know

my b

I didnt read the poster

thought you were recursion for a second

[timber ravine]

Why have an issue with contraceptives? Will we now also make women’s periods illegal?

[velvet steeple]

they prevent pregnancy

[rose prism]

a moral, not a legal one

[velvet steeple]

though legally you lost the ground regarding abortions as well

as you have yet to tell me how you would enforce any of your law

or prove with any certainty an abortion constitutes danger

in fact ironically enough

states with stricter abortion laws

have more abortions

[rose prism]

the practical ground does not change the moral ground

[velvet steeple]

irrelevant

we are talking illegal

versus legal

[rose prism]

we can find practical solutions based on moral problems

[velvet steeple]

no

this is law

not morality

if it was solely a moral arguement

you would be backed by most people in this channel

but this is about law

and law and morality don't always align

[rose prism]

literally most people in this channel do not think that objective morality is a thing, i'm not claiming it has consensus

law should always be focused on aligning towards morality

[velvet steeple]

I dont believe in objective morality

[rose prism]

i figured

[velvet steeple]

because it doesnt exist

you cannot argue for its existence

[rose prism]

When do you think that a human fetus becomes a human being? in the sense that it has more moral value

[velvet steeple]

irrelevant to abortion law

we are talking law

not morality

how wil you enforce illegalizing abortion

what penalties?

who proves it

what will the law say about exceptions

the answer is any anti abortion law would by and large fail

just like you see in the past when they were attempted people will utilize the loopholes

[rose prism]

500,000 abortions per year is a lot better than 900,000 even if they are using loopholes

[velvet steeple]

if doctors give the say so go to a doctor that will give it

again

poor argument

[rose prism]

not really

[velvet steeple]

your making 500,000 criminals

out of a moral crusade

thats impossible to enforce or prove

[rose prism]

500,000 abortions for the life of the mother

even if most of them are not

[velvet steeple]

then you argue birth control is bad

[rose prism]

I meant they'd fall under exceptions

[velvet steeple]

so now the amount of abortions will skyrocket

because far more unwanted pregnancies

[rose prism]

When did I once say i'd pick birth control being illegal over abortion?

[velvet steeple]

you didn't

you also didn't say you wanted it either though

[rose prism]

Right. They have the same moral problem

one that you have not addressed

[velvet steeple]

because im talking law

I will not stoop into the moral crusade

because its wholely not important to regulatory law

Logic defines most morality anyways

and logic is the basis for law

if something cannot be logically sound

[rose prism]

I have said this

[velvet steeple]

how can it be law

[rose prism]

8 times now or something

Slavery is wrong. Everyone agrees that it's wrong. The legality of the matter does not define whether or not it's moral

[velvet steeple]

again

poor example

morally it was always wrong

yet most people kept it

why

because logically it made money

and as such

people turned a blind eye to it

[rose prism]

Morally it was always wrong, so the abolitionists ended it

same here with abortion

[velvet steeple]

massachusets never legalized it

why

because it wasn't financially worth it

morality is not the basis for decisions

logic is

slavery is a perfect example

[rose prism]

The morality of abortion is the main defining factor

[velvet steeple]

which is why making it illegal is a awful decision

[rose prism]

the ban on slavery was absolutely a moral decision

[velvet steeple]

and??????

are you kidding me

banning slavery was a logical decision

that was also morally accepted

but if morality was the main reason

[rose prism]

Seriously? Do you actually think this

[velvet steeple]

regarding abortion yes

making abortion illegal is an awful decision

[rose prism]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

[velvet steeple]

lmao

okay

[rose prism]

the abolitionists ended slavery for moral reasons

[velvet steeple]

lmao

[rose prism]

not just economic ones

[velvet steeple]

again

if morality is the sole reason slavery ended

why did the US ever continue it

[rose prism]

you can't say it was the sole reason

[velvet steeple]

most people were opposed to it

they institution was never looked favorably upon

except by a handful on individuals

[rose prism]

I can't be the only one double taking here

right?

[velvet steeple]

abolition was a pragmatic decision

it coincided with logic

and as such became law

to argue that morality not logic makes up most laws is insane

[rose prism]

Well I don't think we're going to get much farther than that

What is right and wrong (even just in the eyes of people) should be the main basis for laws

[velvet steeple]

false

no taxes

taxes suck

[rose prism]

ok

*criminal

laws

[velvet steeple]

again

[rose prism]

although I'd argue civil laws still enforce morality by keeping order

[velvet steeple]

death penalty

[rose prism]

what about it?

[velvet steeple]

most people think the death penalty is warrented in the US

so morally its fine right?

[rose prism]

I think the death penalty is moral

[velvet steeple]

perfect

[rose prism]

perhaps less moral in practice*

because systems are imperfect

[velvet steeple]

what about segregation

[rose prism]

immoral

[velvet steeple]

most people thought it was moral in the 50s

[rose prism]

doesn't make them right

[timber ravine]

Not to mention you are killing people who try to have abortions at home with no medical supervisor

[velvet steeple]

so no laws to stop it right

[rose prism]

we should still enact laws against it

because it's immoral

[velvet steeple]

but thats against morality

no

[rose prism]

to you it is

[velvet steeple]

its against your morality

so you want it banned

morality is not law for that exact reason

morality isn't universal

[rose prism]

just because we will not ever truly agree on the morality of every action

does not mean we shouldn't try to agree on stuff like slavery and make laws against it

[velvet steeple]

laws are passed even if the majority dont agree because they are logical

because thats logical to fight against oppression

not moral

[rose prism]

Do you actually think slavery should be legal today

[velvet steeple]

hell no

nor did I ever even suggest such a thing

did you read any of what I said

[rose prism]

you said that it shouldn't have been made illegal for moral reasons

[velvet steeple]

cite me

quote me saying that

anywhere

[velvet steeple]

again

not correlated

what was said above that

that you cropped out

[rose prism]

wait, were you referring to abortion? ok nvm

[velvet steeple]

yes

[rose prism]

ok i genuinely misunderstood

[velvet steeple]

I was saying the abolition of slavery was an example of morality and logic coinciding

[rose prism]

If something was immoral to you but logical

[velvet steeple]

but that morality was not the reason

[rose prism]

would you support it?

[velvet steeple]

depends

support is strong word

[rose prism]

ok makes sense

[velvet steeple]

but I wouldn't usually oppose logical law