Three plaintiffs testified about the trauma they experienced carrying nonviable pregnancies.

  • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    How is it a straw man? Regardless of what your “intended concern” is the result is control over a woman’s body autonomy. How can you not see that reality?

    Do you think because I believe the life in a womans belly has inherent value, that I literally want to enslave women?

    If you think that, that’s the the exact problem in our politics. You take things to the extremes and don’t actually want to have conversation, you want to dominate and have your way. I understand the argument that women have a right to make choices on behalf of their bodies and what’s best for it. Do you understand my argument?

    • zahel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      it’s not alive until it is born and can survive outside the womb. Nice logical leaps though.

      • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        You believe that.

        Many don’t.

        Does that make them enslavers to women?

        Say they can survive outside the womb at 6 months. That’s the point that you say ‘okay, no more killing this being’?

        • rabbit_wren@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They can survive outside the womb at 6 months with the right kind of medical care (very high mortality rate, though) and the previous cutoff for abortion was around 5 months, so, yeah I guess someone did say that very thing at some point.

          • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, unfortunately, I think it’s just bad law. I think it’d be okay legislatively, which is why it’s sooooo incredibly odd that the democrats didn’t codify RvW despite having many many many opportunities. But ultimately, I think it was a terribly ruled case that I think the SC was right to overturn. Fun fact, RBG also shares my belief.

            • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.

              • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                They had dozens of opportunities…

                Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.

                Yes they did. They didn’t so idiots would keep voting for them and to say that your rights are ‘under attack’

                Have you heard of Stockholm syndrome? That’s where you’re at.

                • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Where are the dozens of times that Democrats have had the majority Senate, House, and the presidency? You said specifically dozens, therefore there must have been dozens of democratic presidents who had a full democratic Congress. Who were all of these presidents?

                  • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    1977-1979 under jimmy carter 1993-1995 under bill clinton 2007-2011 under Obama

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

                    You said specifically dozens, therefore there must have been dozens of democratic presidents who had a full democratic Congress.

                    Not necessarily, it could be 10 times over 2 years.

                    Regardless, I’ve listed at least 12 years that democrats had a president and majorities in senate and congress - yet, not once did they enshrine what you argue is a human right. Either they didn’t think it’s a human right, they didn’t want to codify it, or it’s just not high on their priority list. They’ve had plenty of opportunities, you only got the dems to blame.

            • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.

            • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.

    • hotdaniel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, I don’t understand, because I dont respect your argument. The argument that women have a right to their bodily autonomy, is enough. Show me a problem in the argument before I care about your argument. When you realize the argument is successful, then you will give up on your own argument and become pro-choice. Asking me to consider your argument is exactly how you remain pro-life. To examine your argument is to pause consideration of my own, and to waste my time inspecting yours. You will never accept any flaw in your argument. Asking me to examine it is completely pointless. That is the conservative way, in essence. I can only ever fail, either fail to convince you or fail by erroneously becoming convinced. In the same way that you can walk East-West and never set one foot North-South, examining your argument has nothing to do with my own. If you want to convince me, convince me why I should not be pro-choice. The right to abortion seems like my own right to bodily autonomy. I see no reason why anyone should have any say over whether I choose to give from my body. Demonstrate why I should think it is so.

      • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        he argument that women have a right to their bodily autonomy, is enough.

        Well sounds like you already decided your argument is right and every other argument is wrong, so we don’t need to discuss any further. I would implore you to explore multiple sides of an argument, so even though you may not agree, much like I disagree with your side, you can understand it, much like I understand your side.

        • hotdaniel@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I refuse to consider your argument until you’ve considered mine. There’s no point otherwise. Your invitation to consider your argument, is an invitation to distract and waste my time. You will never accept any flaws in your own position, that’s why you invite me so openly. The only possibility by accepting, is that I lose. You will mistakenly become convinced that you have a strong argument, when your strategy leads yet another pro-choicer to fail to change your mind, because you won’t change your mind.

          That’s why, like I said, the only thing I care about, is if you can convince me that *I’m * incorrect. Abortion should be legal because of our right to bodily autonomy. There is no other argument that needs to be considered.