Overturning Roe V Wade

[Horu]

Does anyone else feel that the overturning of Roe V Wade has been taken a little too far? This isn't a pro-life vs pro-choice anymore. This is literally being carried into women not having a choice at all and I really don't like it. Yes, I am pro-life, assuming that conception was the result of the woman's choices. I'm also pro-choice when conception is the result of something completely out of woman's control. I am also pro-necessity when it comes to medical/emergency situations. But even worse, states are banning the use of birth control and condoms as a direct result of Roe V Wade being overturned.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well I'm curious here

 

1) is an unborn child human

2) should said human be protected

if yes

3) how do the sins of the father (or mother) detract from he child's humanity

 

The mother's life issue is separate 

[TheImmaculateDreadLordCowCow]

4 minutes ago, Ryusei the Morning Star said:

Well I'm curious here

 

1) is an unborn child human

2) should said human be protected

if yes

3) how do the sins of the father (or mother) detract from he child's humanity

 

The mother's life issue is separate 

and if no?

[Horu]

2 hours ago, Ryusei the Morning Star said:

Well I'm curious here

 

1) is an unborn child human

2) should said human be protected

if yes

3) how do the sins of the father (or mother) detract from he child's humanity

 

The mother's life issue is separate 

1) Yes

2) Yes

3) I explained my stance above. If conception is a result of consent, then I maintain the pro-life stance (This is intended to protect the unborn child). If consent is not a factor, I am pro-choice (this would protect the mother/father under the Roe V Wade law due to the circumstances of the case). I'm sure medical/emergency needs no explaination since it falls under necessity and is meant to protect the doctor.

[Phantom Roxas]

8 hours ago, Horu said:

Does anyone else feel that the overturning of Roe V Wade has been taken a little too far? This isn't a pro-life vs pro-choice anymore. This is literally being carried into women not having a choice at all and I really don't like it. Yes, I am pro-life, assuming that conception was the result of the woman's choices. I'm also pro-choice when conception is the result of something completely out of woman's control. I am also pro-necessity when it comes to medical/emergency situations. But even worse, states are banning the use of birth control and condoms as a direct result of Roe V Wade being overturned.

I agree with you that it's being taken too far, and I'm emphasizing the bolded part because that's what this comes down to for me. I don't believe that the SCOTUS majority honestly values life. The goal is to control women, and Republicans are hiding behind a veil of "pro-life" to make it so that their need for control appears to have a moral basis. Banning birth control and condoms just removes more options for women.

Alito and Barrett describing some mythical "domestic supply of infants" shows that all they can think is that women exist only to serve as baby factories, where children are nothing more than products. Mind you, the GOP relies on not actually doing anything to support children once they are born, since that would require doing for children, as opposed to using them as a means to control women.

[Horu]

4 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

I agree with you that it's being taken too far, and I'm emphasizing the bolded part because that's what this comes down to for me. I don't believe that the SCOTUS majority honestly values life. The goal is to control women, and Republicans are hiding behind a veil of "pro-life" to make it so that their need for control appears to have a moral basis. Banning birth control and condoms just removes more options for women.

Alito and Barrett describing some mythical "domestic supply of infants" shows that all they can think is that women exist only to serve as baby factories, where children are nothing more than products. Mind you, the GOP relies on not actually doing anything to support children once they are born, since that would require doing for children, as opposed to using them as a means to control women.

I honestly view these laws as a means to control. And Yes, since Roe V Wade has been overturned, Arizona has banned abortion, plan b and contraceptives altogether. Mind you, Texas' own abortion law doesn't affect a woman until a heartbeat can be detected. Tennessee's abortion law only affects women with partners. So just giving an idea about the extremes that some states are pushing. So yeah, you can imagine how much it bothered me when my own home state (Arizona) invoked laws more extreme than Texas' Heartbeat Law literally the day after Roe V Wade was overturned.

[Phantom Roxas]

While I think the ruling is currently a foregone conclusion, keep in mind that Roe v Wade actually hasn't been overturned yet. A draft decision for it leaked, but the ruling itself has not been made official. If anything, that makes Arizona's law more extreme, because they aren't even reacting to SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade.

[Horu]

5 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

While I think the ruling is currently a foregone conclusion, keep in mind that Roe v Wade actually hasn't been overturned yet. A draft decision for it leaked, but the ruling itself has not been made official. If anything, that makes Arizona's law more extreme, because they aren't even reacting to SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade.

Damn. Then again, I lived there and the laws in general are rather specific. So yeah, I can see Doug signing off on these laws as soon as they hit his desk and not even waiting for a final decision from Roe V Wade. But I noticed a full ban on contraception, which if I'm not mistaken, also infringes on men's reproductive rights and creates more issues. Now bear in mind that Arizona's legal system is horribly rigged to the point that the family courts will always side with the mother (regardless of how she got that baby or how fit she is to actually be a mother) and the father will have to pay child support or the state will start taking away his resources (driver's license, bank account, etc). So Arizona's new law effectively hurts good women while basically granting the crazy ones a free ride.

 

Edit: This isn't to say that I don't understand why Arizona opted for a no contraception law because I understand 100%. Prostitution is a huge problem in the state. So they figure by effectively taking away safe sex, they'll eliminate, if not, reduce prostitution. Another issue is teen pregnancy (fun fact: teens don't give two shits) and they think by preventing schools from handing out condoms and birth control, they'll likely eliminate or reduce that as well.

Edited May 11 by Horu

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

On 5/10/2022 at 1:08 AM, TheImmaculateDreadLordCowCow said:

and if no?

I guess it depends as to what you're saying No to?

I just have issues with "pro-life" people saying rape should be an exception. It's either a human life or not. Some questions in life are unpleasant when taken to their logical conclusion, but I do not fault a child for the sins of its father

[Horu]

20 hours ago, Ryusei the Morning Star said:

I guess it depends as to what you're saying No to?

I just have issues with "pro-life" people saying rape should be an exception. It's either a human life or not. Some questions in life are unpleasant when taken to their logical conclusion, but I do not fault a child for the sins of its father

This is a question of the mother's moral code. Remember,  the situation in question was not the mother's choice. So now comes another moral question: Is it fair to also force a woman to carry a child she conceived due to circutances that were out of her control?