Roe vs Wade Overturned

#2,076
#2,076
Vol8188 said:
I've never said that it is not up to them. I will say that a rape victim will normally receive a pelvic exam (so it's already invasive) along with antibiotics (in case of possible STD transmission) which can further limit the efficacy of emergency contraceptive pills. If they prefer to just take a pill sure, as long as their provider properly educates them on the higher efficacy of an IUD.

When have I been unwilling to take that into consideration? I've stated the patient can't use the pill if they prefer. I'm simply pointing out an obvious fact that pregnant women have far better options than abortion and that abortion doesn't really have a place in the conversation.
Click to expand...

A large percentage of rapes go unreported or are reported late.
 
#2,079
#2,079
MG1968 said:
It’s also morally wrong to condemn an unwanted child to a life of abuse and misery. It doesn’t matter if it’s with biological parents/relatives or as an adoptee or foster child. The religious right attempts to occupy a moral high ground here but it can’t. “All life is precious” as long as your tax dollars aren’t being used to help provide a better life.
Click to expand...

None of that argument makes any sense. Do you believe women who seek abortions are terrible people who will beat their children?

What do taxes have to do with this?
 
#2,083
#2,083
ClearwaterVol said:
I am indifferent to it. Sometimes, I find it unfortunate that she was not in position to have a baby. Sometimes, I am thankful she was spared the pain of carrying a nonviable or severely handicapped child into the world. Sometimes, I am happy she was able to abort the product of rape.

You guys so want this to be a black and white issue. I see it lots of shades of gray.
Click to expand...
Understood. I was trying to see if you were one of these "I detest abortion, but support a women's right to choose" types. It sounds like you are not.

I've never understood that position in particular, because if you don't believe abortion to be the termination of an entity that has rights, then I don't see what there is to detest about it. At that point it is just a medical procedure, no different from having your gall bladder removed or knee replaced, and nobody would say "I detest knee replacements, think they are morally wrong, but if somebody wants or needs one they should be able to get one."
 
  • Like
Reactions: creekdipper, MemphisVol77 and McDad
#2,084
#2,084
ClearwaterVol said:
I understand, but rape is understandably a traumatic event and not all folks are thinking logically following one.
Click to expand...

Sure. That doesn’t mean we get to excuse all actions forever from a rape victim which seems to be the goal. At some point this is wrong. We have a way of preventing it that’s easy. We can’t excuse bad behavior eternally due to emotional trauma. If you throw your rape baby in the dumpster you should obviously be charged.
 
#2,085
#2,085
Vol8188 said:
Sure. That doesn’t mean we get to excuse all actions forever from a rape victim which seems to be the goal. At some point this is wrong. We have a way of preventing it that’s easy. We can’t excuse bad behavior eternally due to emotional trauma. If you throw your rape baby in the dumpster you should obviously be charged.
Click to expand...

Same rules. up until viability \
 
#2,089
#2,089
ACvol3 said:
So a woman that consents to sex isn’t responsible for her actions?
Click to expand...
That's 50 years of being told that outcomes should exclusively be the result of intent, not actions, to the extent that biology is true or untrue dependent on your subjective view of yourself and your own circumstances.
 
#2,090
#2,090
Jxn Vol said:
I am shocked the left has reverted back to using the term “woman”. I didn’t think they were able to define what a woman is.
Click to expand...

The term has become a tool for democrats to use when it’s time to advance a political agenda. You know, kinda like how every 4 years they suddenly care about black people.

“Pregnant person” will be back soon enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#2,093
#2,093
VOLS INC. said:
The term has become a tool for democrats to use when it’s time to advance a political agenda. You know, kinda like how every 4 years they suddenly care about black people.

“Pregnant person” will be back soon enough.
Click to expand...

You're dopey. Not trying to offend, but your posts are weak and lack real thought.
 
#2,095
#2,095
Vol8188 said:
lol I notice you’re intentionally using the legal term. Good job there.

But we do agree it’s a living human that you’re wanting to abort?
Click to expand...

I can agree with scientific definitions, but there has to be a hierarchy of rights. Giving the fetus rights superior to an already born and living person doesn't sit well with me. Lots and lots of fetuses are miscarried and to provide superior rights to that which is only potential at the expense of the woman's autonomy seems wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TRUEFANVol
#2,096
#2,096
ClearwaterVol said:
I can agree with scientific definitions, but there has to be a hierarchy of rights. Giving the fetus rights superior to an already born and living person doesn't sit well with me. Lots and lots of fetuses are miscarried and to provide superior rights to that which is only potential at the expense of the woman's autonomy seems wrong.
Click to expand...

What makes the right “superior”? You can’t kill me. Does that mean I have superior rights?

And not it’s not “potential”. It’s real. It’s alive. It’s human.
 
  • Like
Reactions: creekdipper, ButchPlz and 05_never_again
#2,097
#2,097
Vol8188 said:
What makes the right “superior”? You can’t kill me. Does that mean I have superior rights?

And not it’s not “potential”. It’s real. It’s alive. It’s human.
Click to expand...
Incredibly well-said. It isn't about a right being "superior."

The reason I can't walk down the street and (legally) randomly punch a dude in the face is not because his rights are "superior" to mine. That dude, just like me, has rights that I cannot violate and punching him in the face would be a violation of those. I see the same concept extending to abortion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, Vol8188 and ButchPlz
#2,098
#2,098
Vol8188 said:
What makes the right “superior”? You can’t kill me. Does that mean I have superior rights?

And not it’s not “potential”. It’s real. It’s alive. It’s human.
Click to expand...



No, until it's actually born it is a potential person.

I cannot kill you, but your existence doesn't endanger mine or force me to take responsibility for your life.
 
#2,099
#2,099
ClearwaterVol said:
I can agree with scientific definitions, but there has to be a hierarchy of rights. Giving the fetus rights superior to an already born and living person doesn't sit well with me. Lots and lots of fetuses are miscarried and to provide superior rights to that which is only potential at the expense of the woman's autonomy seems wrong.
Click to expand...
But we do not have autonomy over our bodies.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top