you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]AXXA 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

This is a big boost for freedom and equal rights. Now all of the people of each state will be free to participate in the relevant fashioning of laws in their states. Previously the freedom of the people and the states to do so was subjugated by the federal government. This resulted in the inequality of mothers having more power than fathers over the lives of their babies.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 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.