New Restrictions on Abortion Have Real World Consequences

Post Reply New Topic

Perhaps. Do you have a better way?

For this particular argument, I don't think that there is a way to prove, one way or another, when human life begins because it is more a question of semantics than anything else. The argument "human life begins at conception" depends entirely on a particular definition of "human".

"What is a human?" has been the subject of many philosophical and scientific debates. I don't think there is a definitive answer to that question as well.

In short, I don't have a better way because I don't think there is any way to ascertain the correctness of an argument about this.

I agree. Lawyers do it in court all the time. They're not necessarily correct, but they manage to find the necessary loopholes to cast just enough doubt, or confound or otherwise sway the judge/jury/opposing counsel.

I have to say this has been one of the most civil abortion debates I’ve seen.Most of these type threads get locked pretty quick.
Basically you won’t chance anyone’s mind on the subject ,but some are more skilled at debate than others.

I rarey participate in these kind of debates with the intent of changing minds.

It has more to do with fine-tuning my own beliefs.

Paying taxes isn't forced labour unless you pay your taxes in labour; but since your money isn't your flesh it's nonsensical to compare paying taxes to forced pregnancy.

If you don't want to pay taxes you can remove yourself from the society that you're a part of (and if one believes taxes are theft I would support them doing this so they no longer need to feel oppressed by taxes).

If you want to pay less taxes you can modify your behaviours to reduce that burden (earn less, buy less, sell less, own less, etc).

Having a portion of your income deducted in order to contribute back to the society that gave you the opportunities you're benefiting from isn't reasonably comparable to forced pregnancy. SMH

I like identifying where irreconcilable differences exist; seeing how others articulate their views makes it easier to identify if and why their view and mine can be reconciled or not.

interesting how the anti-abortionists are generally all on the far right wing.

There's always Nicolae Ceaușescu. Although for irony's sake the revolution that resulted in his execution probably wouldn't have unfolded like it did had he not made abortion illegal.

amuuurican right wingers don't get that if they get their wish and all birth control and abortion are banned, we likely would end up with a system very much like what happened to that cursed land under Ceausescu with orphanages crammed with unwanted and abused/neglected children.

I'm not sure if they don't get it, just don't care or actually view that as still preferable to abortion.

a combination. a lot of 'em of a military bent might see the extra unwanted and resultantly psychopathic mass of people that would result, as suitable cannon fodder for the misadventures of the MICC.

I've been interested in this for a while also. As I understand it, the biggest barrier is that it requires an artificial heart, lungs, liver and kidneys, and as of now only the last of those is past the prototype stage.

But there's a more achievable stepping-stone, which is to use venous and arterial taps to provide oxygenated blood from a person (i.e. with the artificial womb worn like a pack). If that person is male, you'd need to provide hormones like progesterone, and ideally you'd like to filter those out at the venous tap and recycle them so that they stay in the womb. But if that didn't work well, it would be more of a nuisance than a danger.

FWIW I don't have any particular need to control American women, as I haven't dated in the US in several years and don't intend to. My girlfriend is a wonderful lady from a much more pleasant country, not only an impressive athlete and professional, but an intuitive nurturer and a fabulous lover as well. I can't think of any good reason to go back.

In other words you're taking position #3 - that the bureaucratic process is separate from its unavoidable consequence. Aside from being a contradiction in terms, there are two more problems with that:

- Payroll taxes are paid entirely with your labor, not with your money (which you never handle). The federal government owns a 15.3% stake in everything you produce on the job and collects those proceeds directly from your employer, not from you.

- According to your own logic, the Texas and Louisiana laws that required abortion clinics to have hospital admitting privileges would have been constitutional, since neither law directly restricted abortion. (You've already said that it's "nonsensical" to judge a policy by consequences that it doesn't directly compel.) For the same reason, the Court could have simply refused to hear the DNC's challenge to Arizona's voting reforms.


Sure, and someone who doesn't like Texas laws can leave Texas. Likewise for residents of any blue state.

I like the idea of 'voting with your feet' - it worked pretty well for the Athenians who founded Rome and the Englishmen who founded the USA - but at the moment it's effectively illegal:



Notice that the uninhabited areas are all claimed by existing governments. (Greenland by Denmark, Siberia by the Russian Federation, Arctic North America by the US and Canada, the Sahara by Egypt, Lybia and Algeria, the Ghobi Desert by China, the Australian Outback by the Commonwealth of Australia, and Antarctica by a cartel of 54 states that don't really care about preserving the environment there.)

As a humorous aside, even a ridiculous little dot named Rockall is claimed by the UK:




You originally said that "no one is going to be forced to put their needs and interests on hold" to fund a safety net for others, which doesn't stand up to even passing scrutiny. Now you've segued to arguing that it isn't a problem as long as they can reduce the burden, but you conveniently don't apply that reasoning to the examples in your OP.


Taxes aren't charity. US taxes go to fund non-defensive military capabilities, luxury universities for rich kids, $10,000 tax write-offs for people buying $80,000 Teslas, mortgage write-offs for wealthy homebuyers, bank bail-outs, regressive unemployment benefits (i.e. those that pay more to high earners who should need them the least) and an endless litany of reverse-Robin Hood cronyism.

As for your contention that the state is a demigod that gave me everything and deserves a sacrifice, I can't imagine how I'm going to benefit from Pre-K programs that don't work. Or how American workers benefit from an offense-focused military that keeps shipping lanes open to facilitate outsourcing. Or how STEM workers benefit from universities that deliberately create three times as many graduates as there are job openings, driving down salaries. Enlighten me, will you?

When taxes are collected from one's flesh or require allowing another person to occupy your flesh your comparison will be reasonable. Until then comparing paying taxes with forced pregnancy is just absurd and I'm not interested in engaging further with poor attempts to treat them as the same thing.