A Question To Conservatives That Want To Ban All Abortions

[Arlette]

I disagree with that.

Spell it out. What's the state's interest in me carrying a pregnancy to term?

 

[vegas giants]

I disagree with that.

Your agreement is not required

 

[jotathought]

It is the only one that terminates the unborn (it's not a child). Do you know of another? I didnt write that tho. It could be the post-birth option of adoption as well. I wouldnt want to see that banned, would you?



Sorry, I disagree with your assertion. You just oversimplified the woman's reasons to 2 things. Do you realize what pregnancy does to every woman? It can take her life, her health leaving her disabled and unable to care for family, it can interfere with her ability to work and care for dependents like elderly, kids, disabled, it can mean the loss of the roof over their head, it can mea sacrificing higher education, it can mean not being able to uphold responsibilities and obligations to others like employer, community, church, society.

It can mean sacrifices and risks that only the woman knows...do you or any strangers think you know what's best for every pregnant woman? Her needs? And do you believe you or the govt has any right to make that decision for her?


Why are you repeating that? I addressed it. And asked you direct questions after I refuted that argument. Please address it, it's odd that you didnt:

So even in a best case scenario in a society where people will have sex at will...birth control cannot end the need for abortion. Your argument against elective abortion is not valid. It's not possible or reasonable. And people have every right to enjoy consensual sex and not be denied whatever medical or other options are available.​

​

Do you still dispute this? Do you still want to stand by it as an argument against elective abortion? If so, I'm ready to hear your counter-argument.​

I don't agree or support abortion, and if the number of abortions were substantially reduced because of proactive measures to prevent pregnancy, that's a lot of babies and it's better than nothing. Even it's 10% ... that's 60K babies not being aborted. It minimizes the emotion you expressed above and meets in the middle.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Spell it out. What's the state's interest in me carrying a pregnancy to term?

There's many interests, but let's go ahead and start with the one you would easily find most objectionable....just to prove that, no matter which way you slice it, I'm correct on this otherwise minute point.

a state has an interest in, at the very least, the number of people that live within its population, per generation(among other interests at play here)

Now, you may not like this fact, but there is only one group of people that, cumulatively, determine if our population is growing, or declining, and that's women.

Now, that doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean you have to be pro-life. In fact, I find most pro-choicers would agree on this point, and vocally so, when the issue is about say, the environment, or diversity, or other popular progressive causes.

and maybe you're not progressive, and fair enough, but most of those who champion reproductive rights do often concede(and many times, loudly support) the state's responsibility for the population as a raw total.

It is quite contradictory to demand the state be compassionate and liberal toward citizens' social benefits, but then say the state just shouldn't give a shit about the raw number of people it expects to care for, notably in the upcoming generations.

but maybe you're an ancap, and if so, you have worse problems than I imagined.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Your agreement is not required

lol and neither is yours.

 

[Lursa]

I don't agree or support abortion,

I got that.

and if the number of abortions were substantially reduced because of proactive measures to prevent pregnancy, that's a lot of babies and it's better than nothing. Even it's 10% ... that's 60K babies not being aborted. It minimizes the emotion you expressed above and meets in the middle.

Those measures are already common and promoted and subsidized by the govt (despite many conservatives objecting to that). Everyone (except a few radical religious people against birth control) wants to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies.

Since you cannot force people not to have sex or to use birth control measures, all you are doing is complaining. You are not addressing the legal issue of abortion.

This is a discussion. Your comments arent discussion. Basically, we're just ending up with dealing with your feelings...not law.

 

[vegas giants]

There's many interests, but let's go ahead and start with the one you would easily find most objectionable....just to prove that, no matter which way you slice it, I'm correct on this otherwise minute point.

a state has an interest in, at the very least, the number of people that live within its population, per generation(among other interests at play here)

Now, you may not like this fact, but there is only one group of people that, cumulatively, determine if our population is growing, or declining, and that's women.

Now, that doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean you have to be pro-life. In fact, I find most pro-choicers would agree on this point, and vocally so, when the issue is about say, the environment, or diversity, or other popular progressive causes.

and maybe you're not progressive, and fair enough, but most of those who champion reproductive rights do often concede(and many times, loudly support) the state's responsibility for the population as a raw total.

It is quite contradictory to demand the state be compassionate and liberal toward citizens' social benefits, but then say the state just shouldn't give a shit about the raw number of people it expects to care for, or expects to care for, in the upcoming generations.

but maybe you're an ancap, and if so, you have worse problems than I imagined.

So then you support free healthcare for all Americans so the state may protect that interest


This is your logic

 

[vegas giants]

lol and neither is yours.

I didnt offer it

 

[DarkWizard12]

So then you support free healthcare for all Americans so the state may protect that interest

I support free healthcare, but that's a different subject that requires nuance, and it's a broad topic on its own that is only tangentially related to my point.

This is your logic

....well, you misunderstand i think. Yes, I support free healthcare, on condition, but it has little to do with this logic. It is completely possible for someone to say "yes, the state has an interest in its population", while saying "this specific set of social welfare wouldn't be good for us for X reasons".

As I said, it's only tangentially related.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I didnt offer it

neither did I. I just said i disagree lol

 

[Lursa]

I support free healthcare, but that's a different subject that requires nuance, and it's a broad topic on its own that is only tangentially related to my point.

....well, you misunderstand i think. Yes, I support free healthcare, on condition, but it has little to do with this logic. It is completely possible for someone to say "yes, the state has an interest in its population", while saying "this specific set of social welfare wouldn't be good for us for X reasons".

As I said, it's only tangentially related.

Just as it's completely possible...and valid...to believe the state's interests would be better served with the continued better investment in the contributing member of society over the unproven, potential for that 'someday' in the unborn. It's physical and mental statuses are unknowns.

"On 22 January 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb. Even after viability, the fetus in utero counts only as a "potentiality of human life.""​

link​

Not only that, there are plenty of immigrants that would be happy to fulfill any "population" roles the state needs 'in its interests.'

"Population" is not a valid states' interest.

 

[vegas giants]

I support free healthcare, but that's a different subject that requires nuance, and it's a broad topic on its own that is only tangentially related to my point.

....well, you misunderstand i think. Yes, I support free healthcare, on condition, but it has little to do with this logic. It is completely possible for someone to say "yes, the state has an interest in its population", while saying "this specific set of social welfare wouldn't be good for us for X reasons".

As I said, it's only tangentially related.

You want nuance when it suits you.


Abortion is legal in every state in the union and it will remain so because the state has no compelling interest to outlaw it

 

[DarkWizard12]

Just as it's completely possible...and valid...to believe the state's interests would be better served with the continued better investment in the contributing member of society over the unproven, potential for that 'someday' in the unborn. It's physical and mental statuses are unknowns.

"On 22 January 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb. Even after viability, the fetus in utero counts only as a "potentiality of human life.""​

link​

Not only that, there are plenty of immigrants that would be happy to fulfill any "population" roles the state needs 'in its interests.'

It's certainly possible, but that question was "what was the state's interest?", and I answered. Where you go from there is up to you.

"Population" is not a valid states' interest.

LOL okay then! screw building grade schools, roads, taxes, maternity leave, and every freaking thing then! Going full on ancap here!

 

[DarkWizard12]

You want nuance when it suits you.

well, what's your objection? it seems a bit nonsensical to imply that "hey, if you think the state has interest in its population, you must agree with every single social welfare benefit known to mankind!". That's just not true. I don't see you here supporting a grain dole, and by my logic, you certainly wouldn't have to. People are free to refuse any kind of benefits for wide array of reasons.

Abortion is legal in every state in the union and it will remain so because the state has no compelling interest to outlaw it

You're only half right there.

 

[vegas giants]

well, what's your objection? it seems a bit nonsensical to imply that "hey, if you think the state has interest in its population, you must agree with every single social welfare benefit known to mankind!". That's just not true. I don't see you here supporting a grain dole, and by my logic, you certainly wouldn't have to. People are free to refuse any kind of benefits for wide array of reasons.

You're only half right there.

I can also say if the state has an interest in its population then it can also support abortion....because its interest does not extend to try to keep every human life alive

 

[Lursa]

It's certainly possible, but that question was "what was the state's interest?", and I answered. Where you go from there is up to you.

Yes and I was discussing why 'population' IMO is not a valid states' interest. Did you have a counter argument?

LOL okay then! screw building grade schools, roads, taxes, maternity leave, and every freaking thing then! Going full on ancap here!

Is it your impression that 'population' provided by legal immigration would not be taxed and fulfill the same roles as natural born citizens?

 

[DarkWizard12]

Yes and I was discussing why 'population' IMO is not a valid states' interest. Did you have a counter argument?

Yes, my counter argument is that a state that has 0 interest in "the population", is a state that doesn't even exist. Find me ANY state in which its population is not a valid interest. Arguably, every policy and constitutional function is literally centered around the idea that a state has an interest in its population, and further, development of its population. you literally can't have a state without a population.

to the degree that is so is what's debateable, but not the actual point at face value.

Is it your impression that 'population' provided by legal immigration would not be taxed and fulfill the same roles as natural born citizens?

my impression is that, not only is it irrelevant, it also proves my point. A state that has an interest in encouraging legal migration, is also a state that has an interest in the amount of, and development of, of the population. Legal migrants have kids too, and their kids, and so on and so forth.

 

[NoahUSA]

Good post. I'm one of the countless millions of conservatives who does NOT wish to ban all abortions and is a long-standing member of the pro-choice tendency.

You are not a true conservative then.

 

[vegas giants]

Yes, my counter argument is that a state that has 0 interest in "the population", is a state that doesn't even exist. Find me ANY state in which its population is not a valid interest. Arguably, every policy and constitutional function is literally centered around the idea that a state has an interest in its population, and further, development of its population. you literally can't have a state without a population.

to the degree that is so is what's debateable, but not the actual point at face value.

my impression is that, not only is it irrelevant, it also proves my point. A state that has an interest in encouraging legal migration, is also a state that has an interest in the amount of, and development of, of the population. Legal migrants have kids too, and their kids, and so on and so forth.

And no state has 100% interest in the population.


So there is some middle ground and abortion fits in nicely

 

[Arlette]

There's many interests, but let's go ahead and start with the one you would easily find most objectionable....just to prove that, no matter which way you slice it, I'm correct on this otherwise minute point.

a state has an interest in, at the very least, the number of people that live within its population, per generation(among other interests at play here)

Now, you may not like this fact, but there is only one group of people that, cumulatively, determine if our population is growing, or declining, and that's women.

Now, that doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean you have to be pro-life. In fact, I find most pro-choicers would agree on this point, and vocally so, when the issue is about say, the environment, or diversity, or other popular progressive causes.

and maybe you're not progressive, and fair enough, but most of those who champion reproductive rights do often concede(and many times, loudly support) the state's responsibility for the population as a raw total.

It is quite contradictory to demand the state be compassionate and liberal toward citizens' social benefits, but then say the state just shouldn't give a shit about the raw number of people it expects to care for, notably in the upcoming generations.

but maybe you're an ancap, and if so, you have worse problems than I imagined.

Laughable. The population will not dwindle down measurable because some women have abortions. Tell someone with just one child child they must have two. Go for it. **** around and find out.

Now on to the many interest you failed to address. I'm all ears

 

[NoahUSA]

I've been debating abortion since the 90s and I have only encountered maybe 3-4 pro-lifers who think ALL abortions should be banned. Those people are even against abortion for emergency situations like ectopic pregnancies.

Isn't the idea of natural selection still accepted? And God has a plan for everyone and when they return to Him is up to Him and Him alone. Mutilating, starving, and all other forms of killing a child are horrible and so is anyone that does not condone this practice. Abortion is the leading cause of death to Americans.

 

[Lursa]

Yes, my counter argument is that a state that has 0 interest in "the population", is a state that doesn't even exist. Find me ANY state in which its population is not a valid interest. Arguably, every policy and constitutional function is literally centered around the idea that a state has an interest in its population, and further, development of its population. you literally can't have a state without a population.

I didnt necessarily say that population wasnt a valid interest, meaning numbers, or if I did, I mistyped. Because population is just about numbers and I did describe that numbers would not be an issue since there is a vast population of immigrants that would be able to fulfill those numbers and roles.

(I meant that population wasnt a valid argument for state's interest because the state could easily fulfill that interest with legal immigration. My bad if I was unclear.)

And of course, a state could and would take just as much interest in an immigrant population as a natural born one, right? If not, why not? The investments seem pretty equal. No? Explain otherwise.

to the degree that is so is what's debateable, but not the actual point at face value.

my impression is that, not only is it irrelevant, it also proves my point. A state that has an interest in encouraging legal migration, is also a state that has an interest in the amount of, and development of, of the population. Legal migrants have kids too, and their kids, and so on and so forth.

In no way did you refute that legal immigrants wouldnt/couldnt fulfill the same roles as natural born citizens, as the 'population' of a state, satisfying that interest.

We werent discussing a state having an interest in encouraging legal immigration. LOL and we know that wouldnt be an issue at all. There are millions desiring to move here. We were discussing "population" as state's interest and legal immigrants would fulfill that interest. If not, please explain why. You did not do so thus far.

 

[Arlette]

Isn't the idea of natural selection still accepted? And God has a plan for everyone and when they return to Him is up to Him and Him alone. Mutilating, starving, and all other forms of killing a child are horrible and so is anyone that does not condone this practice. Abortion is the leading cause of death to Americans.

Just curious, what's God's great plan for you?

 

[Lursa]

Isn't the idea of natural selection still accepted? And God has a plan for everyone and when they return to Him is up to Him and Him alone. Mutilating, starving, and all other forms of killing a child are horrible and so is anyone that does not condone this practice. Abortion is the leading cause of death to Americans.

Abortion has no negative effects on society. If you believe otherwise, please explain. Sources are recommended. (And I wrote "society," meaning as a whole.)

 

[vegas giants]

Isn't the idea of natural selection still accepted? And God has a plan for everyone and when they return to Him is up to Him and Him alone. Mutilating, starving, and all other forms of killing a child are horrible and so is anyone that does not condone this practice. Abortion is the leading cause of death to Americans.

God has no say over US law