***REDDIT MELTDOWN WATCH*** ROE VS WADE ABOUT TO BE OVERTURNED

submitted by Tarrock from self.MeanwhileOnReddit

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)

Even if you wish to argue that an unborn first trimester fetus is 50% the property of a man (though it's not), the 50% ownership of the fetus by the mother would give her as much right to determine what is best for her and the fetus. Overturning RvW would remove that right from the woman in 22 states. The rights of the man would be greater than those of the mother. Moreover, one can easily show that the mother has much greater than 50% of the right to determine what is best for her and the fetus. Men who want to have children can make arrangements with women who want to have children. Men do not have the right to force women to have children, regardless of unethical laws in some states.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Do you not see the problem with considering a person someone's property in the first place?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

'property' is not the issue. A fetus is part of the mother, part of her body.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

So we should just have a mater familias system where children are nothing more than an extension of their mother who owns them to the point of having the right to kill them?

[–]sproketboy 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Stop asking u/socks hard questions! It's wacists!

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

work on your reading comprehension

[–]sproketboy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

WACIST

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, I'm stupidist.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

That's not related to my comment.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Yes it is, because you are basically saying that a baby is just part of its mother and has no rights of its own.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

that's not what I wrote, nor is it implied in what I wrote

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

You said a fetus is part of the mother's body and therefore the mother can do whatever she wants with it.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

No. I wrote:

Even if you wish to argue that an unborn first trimester fetus is 50% the property of a man (though it's not), the 50% ownership of the fetus by the mother would give her as much right to determine what is best for her and the fetus. Overturning RvW would remove that right from the woman in 22 states. The rights of the man would be greater than those of the mother. Moreover, one can easily show that the mother has much greater than 50% of the right to determine what is best for her and the fetus. Men who want to have children can make arrangements with women who want to have children. Men do not have the right to force women to have children, regardless of unethical laws in some states.

and then this:

'property' is not the issue. A fetus is part of the mother, part of her body.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

'property' is not the issue. A fetus is part of the mother, part of her body.

That's what I said you said. And it is a property issue, since you say a fetus belongs to the mother. But it is its own being. It moves on its own, grows its own brain, has its own senses, and its own heartbeat. That is not the same as an arm or a leg. Should a siamese twin be allowed to chop the other's head off because it's "part of their body"?

This is not a men vs women thing, this has nothing to do with men thinking they should have control over women. Men aren't even relevant here. But that's how the media portrays it to you. When seen from that angle, that being against abortion is meant to take away womens' rights, and ignoring the argument about life, being pro-choice makes sense. But that's fake news. Conservatives have genuinely cared about this for a very long time. They didn't actually become insane fascists until the middle of 2020, when the left was asking for it by burning down entire towns rioting and looting and false flagging as anarchists. Then they started being racist, sexist, alphabet-phobic, and obsessed with enforcing tradition and natural order and purging "degeneracy". The abortion battle has been raging for far longer than that, so it can't be rooted in their much more recent sexist beliefs.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Men do not have the right to force women to have children

According to who?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

(Ethical humans.)

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Looks like the supreme court disagrees with you about which humans are the ethical ones. Some people would argue women don't have the right to kill their husbands unborn children. How do you suggest we determine ethics in a democracy?

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Looks like the supreme court disagrees with you about which humans are the ethical ones.

The 1971-73 Supreme Court agreed obviously with RvW, as do I. The current Supreme Court is illegitimate, because it was packed with 3 GOP hacks by McConnell, adding to the 3 other GOP hacks who are there, and thus approved of Texas' recent abusive abortion law. That was the beginning of the end of RvW. It's unethical on several levels.

Some people would argue women don't have the right to kill their husbands unborn children.

The husband does not own a 1st trimester 5 cm, 18 g, fetus that has no consciousness, nor does he own the mother or the later stages of the fetus. The fetus is part of the mother's body. The mother has a right to look after her own safety, and to abort a fetus within the first trimester.

How do you suggest we determine ethics in a democracy?

Disband the electoral college, make gerrymandering illegal (again), make lobbying illegal (it's a corrupt industry), separate church and state (again), overturn the Citizens United decision, require term limits for all politicians to 2 terms max, require everyone to vote, make voting day a holiday, require the Fairness Doctrine (again), enforce penalties for politicians who lie to the public, and much more, but regarding abortion, provide free health care for women in their first trimester of pregnancy, require them at that time to see a free doctor, and the option to abort the fetus if necessary within that period, but not thereafter. Regarding ethics in democracy more generally, remind people to avoid emotivism, to examine their options carefully, and to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue .

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

require them at that time to see a free doctor, and the option to abort the fetus if necessary within that period but not thereafter.

So would you agree with a ban on late term abortion if this free doctor option system you described were in place where?

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That's part of what I've written. If however the life of the woman is in danger, a doctor could advise on an abortion after the 1st term if absolutely necessary. Other countries do this.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

For me, abortion is a men's right's issue. Married women have no right to abort their husbands baby, according to ethical humans.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Possession is nine-tenths of the law

A husband doesn't own the wife or the fetus, it's as simple as that. If however you bought your wife and/or baby in Afghanistan, you might own them. But in the US, we're not that fucked up (yet, if the GOP have their way).

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I disagree, I think married men should have a say in whether their unborn children are aborted. Until some sort of men's right's law is in place, I will support the court on this one. Although my heart aches for the women stuck with babies from black man sex.