Oddbean new post about login | logout Reproductive rights refer to more than just abortion, there are groups advocating for the prohibition of contraceptives as well. As for current states. When a government threatens doctors with prison time over providing abortions they deem necessary for the care of their patients, that the state has no business policing, then the state controls reproductive rights at the expense of the consent of those directly involved. We do not currently have a state that tells people they're not allowed to have children, but many countries have in the 20th century committed forced sterilization of "undesirables" including the United States. Allowing state control over ANY aspect of reproduction is a slippery slope that is difficult to climb out of. Be careful what you wish for.
Glad we agree no states have reproductive control laws. Thanks for being honest. Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with reproductive rights or issues. Not one bit, never has. Sterilization? Lol, ok. What does that have to do with abortion in 2024? It is hard to keep up with all your leaps and bounds of the goal post. Abortion is about murder, plain and simple. The question is the same as always, when does it become murder, and where do we draw the line. Conception? 6 weeks? Heartbeat? Birth? Of course the state should have a say in protecting a human's life and liberty. That is literally the only thing they exist for. What a silly argument.
I've never been dishonest, I don't appreciate the implication that you expected I wouldn't be. I fail to see how historically factual government enforcement of sterilization for the explicit intent to prevent reproduction is irrelevant to this discussion. History doesn't necessarily repeat itself but it often rhymes. Abortion is not about murder at all and has everything to do with reproductive rights, it is you who is dishonest to try to paint it as you are in terms that are black and white.
Except it has nothing to do with reproductive rights. Never has been, never will be. A woman is free to fuck any adult guy she wants to impregnate herself and have a child. No laws exist otherwise, not have been seriously proposed. You fell for their BS, nothing more, nothing less. Oh well, move on. I really don't care if I hurt your feelings, literally not one bit. It isn't about healthcare, reproductive rights, or any other nonsense. It is about whether or not you are murdering a child. It's fantastic though that you and others like you don't want to admit it. Comical to a degree. I get it, I wouldn't feel good about murdering a helpless baby either. Bummer for you to have to defend that. What's next, elderly? Disabled? Yikes.
You seem to be really worked up over this, you clearly do not speak with reason but with emotion. You did not hurt my feelings at all. You appeal to emotional "murdering a helpless baby" strawman arguments to support your view. Learn to argue your point effectively instead of resorting to baseless arguments and ad hominem personal attacks. Keep pushing for the right to enslave women to only be worth what their wombs can create. That they do not own their bodies and can be forced to carry to term against their will. Your position is shameful and you should be ashamed.
Emotional? Lol, nah. Not at all. You said "I don't appreciate being called dishonest". Hahaha. Yes, I clearly hurt your feelings. I am the one just telling the facts and talking about where the line should be for murder or not. But onto the women, I suppose they shouldn't have had sex then, huh? Almost as if there is consequences, weird. What a concept. That's like keeping your Bitcoin on FTX, getting wrecked, and then asking for a bailout. Nah, fuck off. Rape accounts for virtually no abortions per year. But hey, I am reasonable, I am ok with early abortions abortions from rape. But let's be real, the chance of a woman ovulating while being raped is virtually non existent. It happens, yes. So I will concede this to them as long as it is done early. Personal attacks? What in the literal hell are you talking about?? I didn't attack you on any way. If you would like to move on, we can discuss removing women's right to vote next if you want?
Wow, so you just really don't like women. Sad.
Huh? Still spouting nonsense, huh? Unless they become eligible for selective service, it isn't even a question. They shouldn't be allowed to vote for war Hawks who will send me, or my son to war. My wife agrees with me on this and abortion, does she hate women also? Lol. Tell you what, let's also get back to the days of landowners only being allowed to vote as well as a civics test.
Selective service is an affront to a free society and nobody male or female should be required to go fight in a war that they do not support or believe in. So you support a system where women are subservient to men and cannot vote, where they do not have autonomy over her own bodies, and where only rich landowners get to decide the rules for everyone. I suppose you want to allow slavery again too, reintroduce mandatory religious attendance, and you likely support capital punishment. Is that right?
I agree, nobody should be drafted. however, men can be and have. women cannot.who says women don't have bodily autonomy? Not me. I said they shouldn't be able to murder a child, that has nothing to do with their body. They should not get the right to vote me or my son into battle. Correct. Did I say rich landowners should make the rules for everyone?? I said vote, not make the rules. And I never said rich people. I realize you are likely a a renter now, but there is nothing stopping you from buying land. You can buy a whole search of land in Michigan urban areas for dirt cheap, like 1k. same with Nevada, AZ, IN, and most of the south. Slavery? uh, no. I am not religious, and believe in freedkm and liberty so I have no idea what in the hell you are talking about on attending religious services? Just spouting more nonsense?
I apologize for my less collected final paragraph from my last message. Other than your views being similar to those following religious ideologies, there's nothing directly tying what you said to religion. I was assuming but am glad you are not religious. I obviously do not agree that abortions are murder, abortions are induced miscarriages and even if not induced somewhere between 10 - 40% of pregnancies naturally miscarry. There are significant problems with making abortion illegal, including that women who miscarry naturally sometimes get prosecuted for a crime they did not commit when they are already suffering a loss that's just made worse by the legal system. There are also higher risks involved with birth than with abortion, with more women dying in childbirth than through abortion. Doctor's and their patients should be allowed to have final say on this not only due to that general risk, but it would also avoid cases we see where the pregnancy has a high likelihood of becoming life threatening if not terminated early but the doctor's are too afraid of legal prosecution to proceed with necessary treatment to save the woman. Fetuses are not babies, not while they threaten the life and well being of the women carrying them. Women with true bodily autonomy should not be compelled to risk their lives and well being to bring to term a fetus they do not want or are not equipped to care for just because they had sex. This is not good for the woman or the child born to a home with no love for them. Until we advance technologically enough to support fetuses outside the womb (and advance economically enough to support them to adulthood without putting undo burden on anyone through more taxes that pay for the support of children without willing parents), then removing consent unfortunately leads to the death of the fetus. Consent for sex does not equal consent to maintain life threatening pregnancy. But I know you disagree on this, so let's agree to disagree. Also, even though we disagree so far (and you rudely keep calling my responses nonsense when they are not, with the exception of the last paragraph in my previous message), you have my respect for engaging on a touchy subject for as long as we have. In response to the land/voting issue: Voting is what ultimately makes the rules, so if only those who own land can vote then only those who own land can make the rules. Now just because I do not agree that ONLY those who own land should vote, doesn't mean I disagree on your principle view that only those who are invested in the jurisdiction should be able to vote on its policies. I actually agree with you partially. Personally I like the idea that you only get a vote once you live in a jurisdiction for a period of let's say 5 years, you get another vote if you purchase and live on that land as well for that 5 years. So after 5 years renters invested their time, while owners invested both their time and money (which is just preserved time). After maybe 10 more years each would get another vote or 2 based on these criteria and then after maybe another 20 years another. This would allow those less invested due to financial circumstances a chance to vote based on their time invested alone which I think is fair. It also provides a decent amount of time lag before changes of law could occur due to high levels of immigration, providing some level of legal stability to current citizens whose voting power would also increase as the new residents gain voting power. This is another reason I like Blockchain tech, because only those who actually invest time and effort to run nodes get to influence the direction of the network by participating in the consensus of network updates. Users don't get to vote, they just to benefit from the network as it is. Back to the draft, seems we overall agree. However the selective service was started by Congress in 1940, it was not voted on by the public, only 1 representative was female and she did vote yea although it would've passed without her vote anyway. I don't understand your position or justification to remove women from being able to vote in their representative government based on an act that was passed by almost entirely men that applied to only men, and that the public has no say in. Regardless I'm glad we agree that it is an atrocious act that essentially legalized randomized slavery into war and it should be repealed.
Gotcha. Yes, we clearly will not agree on murder or not. That's fine. The selective service will never be repealed, and if so, there needs to be one of 2 options: either women get included, or they lose their right to vote. I personally would rather see it removed, but that ain't gonna happen. There have been dozens and dozens of different congresses, each could have done it. Of course the people didn't vote, this isn't a democracy. Democracies are for France and little children. I would absolutely compromise on living in an area for XX time instead of land owner.