Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

And if you asked those people if the women should bear the consequences of the pregnancy? They would say yes. Obviously. You're twisting things disingenuously to suit yourself as per usual.

 

How was my post condescending? You've dodged the question again, if you're 'happy to engage tough questions' then do so. When you keep dodging the question though and give me nothing to reply back to, since you've given no answer, then all I can point out is that you've again dodged the question.

 

Explain what you mean.

When it comes to abortion, even those over 75 years old in the USA support the right to an abortion, although it is only like 55%.

Is your claim that people in the past had LESS sex than people do now, or did in the 1960's?

If that is your claim, I am skeptical because people were not as well educated on sex or in general and we know that sex was still rampant. We also know that while more people were legally married, they were often estranged, cheated in higher numbers, were physically abusive in higher numbers.

 

Pose the question without condescension and I'm happy to respond to it? Obviously things are moving quickly and I'm responding to a lot of messages as this is an echo chamber that picks on anyone with a different point of view.

 

Absolutely, I agree with you that there are a lot of Americans that support the elimination of abortion.

My point is only that it is clearly the minority.

 

Nationally, not by state, where it is now decided. As you know I'm sure.

 

Well, you've sort of answered the previous question in your replies to others so my question, or challenge to you is...

Do you think 'antiquated' views on sexuality favored men? Do you think those views of old were fair to women?

 

I don't understand what your position is.

Is your position that Roe was wrong and that it IS something that should be considered state by state as per the recent SCOTUS ruling?

Does it bother you that there is such a vast discrepancy in rights between the states?

 

We’ve had this debate before and knowing personally women who have made the difficult decision to have an abortion you’re not going to convince a lot of people by blaming women.

If we want a “Culture of Life” it should be about both men and women having responsibility and about making it easier to raise children. I fully agree abortion should be rare and ideally every pregnancy is wanted and every child born to be raised in a happy loving family. Moral condemnation and legal bans aren’t going to get us there.

 

If by antiquated - you mean sexuality reserved for a marriage - then no, that didn't "favor" men that was what was good for everyone. It was good for women and children. It was good for men. It doesn't guarantee happiness forever but it's the best structure we humans have for one to exercise their sexuality faculties which provides the greatest shelter for women and children.

In my experience, modern women eschew casual sex, they, by and large, seem to be looking for commitment much more then men. They hate "**** boys." A body count is a source of pride for males, a body count is not a source of pride for women.

I think women, by and large, would love to live in a culture where men were committed and wanted to wait until marriage or being in a very committed relationship to have sex.

Obviously, these are generalities and temperaments vary person to person but as a trend I think that's correct.

 

Well, I don't believe in abortion, absent some sort of trolley situation, so I'm happy Roe was reversed and abortion has been limited to the degree that it has.

Does it bother me that abortion access has been curtailed? No. I don't believe in abortion access absent some minor caveats.

Obviously what I want is people to exercise their sexual faculties in responsible situations and avoid all of these horrible situations. I would like promote a culture that promotes the responsible use of the sexual faculties. I think that's best for men, and especially for women and children.

 

I don't think agreement is as universal as you suppose.

 

Marriage is a man made idea that doesn't have to exist at all and I disagree, it DOES favor men because the man can get up and start a whole other family with another woman. That's a lot harder for a woman to do, would you not agree with that? That's why divorce laws tend to favor women because we know instinctually that marriage favors the man. He's the one that has left the woman single with his children (sometimes) and thus has made it harder for her on the dating market per se. In ye olden days, these women were cast out as, like I said, promiscuous women not worthy of basic human dignity.

That's what this antiquated moral code always boils down to, shaming women for having sex. Having a society that shames casual sex might not be as bad one that outlaws it but it's the 2nd worst thing to that.

How is that? Well, gay sex hasn't been illegal for a long time now but the shaming of it has resulted in discrimination towards those that partake in it, right?

My opinion is to not shame people for stuff they do if it doesn't harm anyone and is consensual.

Well I don't disagree but your rhetoric implies that we should discourage women that DO want casual sex, that do want to sleep around. You've pretty plainly said this. This isn't much different then the antiquated moral code that shamed woman who had casual sex basically out of social society.

Because you certainly don't agree that we should encourage women to do what they want with their bodies, which includes having sexual relations with as many people as they wish.

And for the argument that you had with me before my point still stands, people are able to have sex without reproduction. That we have so many single mothers or whatever is because one of two reasons.

1.) The person the woman committed to isn't the person she thought they were. People can be in love for 5 years and then the 6th year hate each other.
or
2.) They didn't know how to use protection and preventative measures.

We know contraception in all its forms is VERY effective. As I've mentioned before, pornstars do a hell of a job of not getting pregnant but I'm guess scenario one is what happens A LOT of the time.

I wish the pro-life movement made this their message, a message PRO contraception. Since it's not their message it does sound like what @fchowd0311 assumes, that a lot of pro-life people see forcing women to carry out their pregnancies as punishment for their actions. From what I can tell a lot of pro-life people are also against contraception so....

I think you're just downplaying that many relationships fail. Back then, you were married and that's it, divorce was frowned upon, nowadays it's an option.

I think even in a scenario where sex before marriage is banned (not saying thats what you want, just a scenario)you'd still get broken families because relationships of 10, 20 years are not easy to maintain.

Because people in love can think they will love each other for 20 years, long enough for the child to grow up and move out, but in the end it's just words and in the end they have no idea the obstacles their relationship will face.

You'd have to basically force people that want to divorce to stay together and that's not a healthy household for children either.

If pro-liferers were energetic about contraception and teaching teens about how to use it and access to it then it would be a lot easier to sympathize with their message, since it often is not even part of pro-life arguments it does honestly feel like the message is more about controlling what they see as sexual degeneracy and policing sexual morality because otherwise contraceptives and more sexual education would also sharply decrease abortions and accidental children.

 

Well you cut off the response..

 

@JuanValdez just said that most women who are denied a legal abortion will end up just having the baby. That is incompatible with the statement that outlawing abortion will not reduce the number of abortions (unless the number of women seeking abortions rises so much that even with most of them opting to have the baby, the remaining number who get illegal abortions would still equal the total number that sought abortions prior to the ban, but that is a silly counterfactual included only for the sake of completeness). Both statements cannot be true at the same time, no matter what we know or don't know.

So, at least for the time being, outlawing abortion reduces abortions?

 

I 100% agree with this. This is what makes pro-life arguments hollow to me.

 

Not only am I in favor of contraception, I think states should offer people money at young ages for vasectomy/tubal ligation, probably like $2-3,000 for vasectomy and $10,000 for tubal ligation. The best way to eliminate abortions is to eliminate unwanted pregnancies. The best way to eliminate unwanted pregnancies is to render pregnancy impossible for those who don't want babies. Incentives are a proven way to encourage behavior. Best of all, no killing involved.

 

I’m going to point out that prior to Dobbs we had been seeing the amount of abortions decline even without bans. A lot of they had to do with many factors such as ease of access to contraception and better education.

It also appears they when countries make it legal and provided contraception abortion rates actually go down.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...n-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

 

Not sure if serious given your stated opposition to government spending on social programs but that would be a program I think could be considered.

Cheaper than that though would be providing much more access to contraception including distributing condoms and spermicide. They would also help with controlling STDs.