JUST IN | US Supreme Court ends constitutional right to abortion

[tetrasect]

Interesting.

I was literally kak scared of just the thought of ever having to explain to my parents I got someone pregnant.

That principle carried through to adulthood where even to this day I worry at the thought and expense/responsibility of having a child, even though now I am more prepared for it should it happen.

Not saying I'm perfect, but I honestly always just thought it would be my problem and my responsibility. Abortion hardly ever enters my mind on this topic though.

You were kak scared of getting someone pregnant yet abortion never crossed your mind?

Hell, even getting a pet is like a major decision with me.

Lol I pick up every stray or seemingly lost animal I come across.

Even adopted a street rat once... Unfortunately I left the window cracked in my flat that was on like the 8th floor and when I got back home he was gone. Hope he survived the fall.

 

[adrianx]

I'm slightly confused about how I feel, but gawd, what an interesting perspective:

 

[agentrfr]

Holy cow....

I'm sorry friend, you dont get to wriggle out of this one.

First off, stop strawmanning what I say. It is dishonest. Several thousand people are reading this and they can see you. Whenever you do, you are not making compelling argument or a substantial contribution to the debate.

You said financial reasons are not valid for an abortion because anyone having sex is obligated to be both willing to give birth and raise a child, as well as be prepared for the birth of said child.

I said financial reasons are not a valid justification for an abortion (I will expound on this infra). I did not say "financial reasons are not valid for an abortion because anyone having sex is obligated to be both willing to give birth and raise a child, as well as be prepared for the birth of said child."

I said given the obligation that parents have toward their spawn, it is negligent and irresponsible to not be prepared for a child before engaging in sex.

When I pointed out what absolute BS that is, you respond with a link to 9 pages of unrelated legal jargon and tell me to read the Children's Act.

Strawman fallacy. Fallacy of incredulity.

I said, in post number 1041: "Mitigating against a potential outcome does not absolve you of responsibility if that outcome comes to fruition." You responded in post number 1043 "In the real world, such an obligation does not exist. It's frankly ridiculous that you think it does."

I cackled, then linked you to a summary of the Law of Damages. I choose that example expressly as not having anything to do with abortion directly.

The principal laid before you is that of the obligation we have as members of society to not damage the patrimony of others. It doesnt matter if you take mitigating steps against it. If you are responsible for causing damage to the patrimony of someone, they have a valid claim in that you are responsible for restitution.

Therefore, your statement "In the real world, such an obligation does not exist." is false. It does. It is an established matter of law. The Law of Damages is one such example. There are others.

You then facetiously retorted "Nowhere does it say there that there is a legal (or otherwise) obligation to be willing and prepared to have a child in order to have sex." at post number 1046.

I then directed your attention to the relevant section of our Constitution, the Children’s Act, Child Justice Act and Sexual Offences Act.

It is pertinently clear that parents have the obligation to the best interests of their children. You do not have a choice. You have to.
This includes inter alia
The obligation to feed the child.
The obligation to clothe the child.
The obligation to provide education for the child.
The obligation to protect the child from physical harm.
The obligation to provide security for the child.
The obligation to look after the health of the child.

All of the above cost money.

If you had applied your mind, you would have put two and two together and realized the link. If you fail in your legal obligations, you are in material breach of the law.

The point going over your head, you responded in post 1057: "None of that says that prohibits sex unless you are willing, prepared and ready to raise a child. You're attempting some serious goalpost shifting."

I then responded "Ignorance is not an acceptable defense." and linked you to a summary of ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

The point you're supposed to understand is claiming ignorance of a law or obligation does not absolve you from executing it.

So here comes the kicker:

If you make a child, you have to look after it. You do not have a choice. If you do not, you are in material breach of the law.

Your obligations to that child involve money.

If you plan to not fulfill your obligations, or in your behavior demonstrates a repudiation of your obligations, you are in material breach of the law.

Therefore, it is a trite conclusion that it is responsible to be prepared for the outcomes of an event which place obligations upon you, where that activity is elective.

Nobody forces you to make a child. But if you do, you are forced to look after it.

You cannot claim ignorance that if you make a child you must look after it. It is not an acceptable defense.

Now you seriously lost the plot with this "ignorance of the law" crap.

You're going to find yourself in court one day and it will not go well for you.

Let me explain how it works in the real world.

People have sex. Sometimes they don't even know each other (shocking right?). They are unwilling and unprepared (financially, emotionally and whatever you wanna add here) to have a baby, yet they still have sex. For fun.

Bizarre, right? Welcome to planet earth.

Fallacious appeal to popular opinion.

Just because a lot of people do something, does not justify the act. A lot of people thought it was moral to be racist during apartheid. It may have been lawful, but was it right then?

Having a child is a terrifying, stressful and expensive process. Ask any parent.

Making a child (whether you want one or not) while being unprepared for one, is negligent. If you continue to repudiate, you are in material breach of the law.

 

[tetrasect]

I'm sorry friend, you dont get to wriggle out of this one.

First off, stop strawmanning what I say. It is dishonest. Several thousand people are reading this and they can see you. Whenever you do, you are not making compelling argument or a substantial contribution to the debate.


I said financial reasons are not a valid justification for an abortion (I will expound on this infra). I did not say "financial reasons are not valid for an abortion because anyone having sex is obligated to be both willing to give birth and raise a child, as well as be prepared for the birth of said child."

I said given the obligation that parents have toward their spawn, it is negligent and irresponsible to not be prepared for a child before engaging in sex.

Strawman fallacy. Fallacy of incredulity.

I said, in post number 1041: "Mitigating against a potential outcome does not absolve you of responsibility if that outcome comes to fruition." You responded in post number 1043 "In the real world, such an obligation does not exist. It's frankly ridiculous that you think it does."

I cackled, then linked you to a summary of the Law of Damages. I choose that example expressly as not having anything to do with abortion directly.

The principal laid before you is that of the obligation we have as members of society to not damage the patrimony of others. It doesnt matter if you take mitigating steps against it. If you are responsible for causing damage to the patrimony of someone, they have a valid claim in that you are responsible for restitution.

Therefore, your statement "In the real world, such an obligation does not exist." is false. It does. It is an established matter of law. The Law of Damages is one such example. There are others.

You then facetiously retorted "Nowhere does it say there that there is a legal (or otherwise) obligation to be willing and prepared to have a child in order to have sex." at post number 1046.

I then directed your attention to the relevant section of our Constitution, the Children’s Act, Child Justice Act and Sexual Offences Act.

It is pertinently clear that parents have the obligation to the best interests of their children. You do not have a choice. You have to.
This includes inter alia
The obligation to feed the child.
The obligation to clothe the child.
The obligation to provide education for the child.
The obligation to protect the child from physical harm.
The obligation to provide security for the child.
The obligation to look after the health of the child.

All of the above cost money.

If you had applied your mind, you would have put two and two together and realized the link. If you fail in your legal obligations, you are in material breach of the law.

The point going over your head, you responded in post 1057: "None of that says that prohibits sex unless you are willing, prepared and ready to raise a child. You're attempting some serious goalpost shifting."

I then responded "Ignorance is not an acceptable defense." and linked you to a summary of ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

The point you're supposed to understand is claiming ignorance of a law or obligation does not absolve you from executing it.

So here comes the kicker:

If you make a child, you have to look after it. You do not have a choice. If you do not, you are in material breach of the law.

Your obligations to that child involve money.

If you plan to not fulfill your obligations, or in your behavior demonstrates a repudiation of your obligations, you are in material breach of the law.

Therefore, it is a trite conclusion that it is responsible to be prepared for the outcomes of an event which place obligations upon you, where that activity is elective.

Nobody forces you to make a child. But if you do, you are forced to look after it.

You cannot claim ignorance that if you make a child you must look after it. It is not an acceptable defense.

You're going to find yourself in court one day and it will not go well for you.

Fallacious appeal to popular opinion.

Just because a lot of people do something, does not justify the act. A lot of people thought it was moral to be racist during apartheid. It may have been lawful, but was it right then?

Having a child is a terrifying, stressful and expensive process. Ask any parent.

Making a child (whether you want one or not) while being unprepared for one, is negligent. If you continue to repudiate, you are in material breach of the law.

Obligations of child care do not translate to obligations to have sex.
Your waffling is nonsense.

 

[agentrfr]

Obligations of child care do not translate to obligations to have sex.
Your waffling is nonsense.

Fallacy of incredulity.

 

[tetrasect]

Fallacy of incredulity.

Are you saying it's somehow illegal to have sex if you are not planning to have a child or what exactly is your point here cause honestly you've completely lost me (and please keep it short and concise cause it's getting very tiring).

 

[C4Cat]

Are you saying it's somehow illegal to have sex if you are not planning to have a child or what exactly is your point here cause honestly you've completely lost me (and please keep it short and concise cause it's getting very tiring).

I think he is just saying that if you have sex then you have to be prepared for the possibility you might have children and that there are certain obligations that come with that. Which is fine.

Where we differ is that he thinks one of the obligations you have is to not abort the pregnancy whereas I think you have an obligation to abort the pregnancy if you're not able to meet the other obligations involved in raising a child. It's a difference of opinion on what obligations are involved. I think we all agree on the obligations a parent has, once the child is born, we differ on the obligations a pregnant mother has.

 

[tetrasect]

I think he is just saying that if you have sex then you have to be prepared for the possibility you might have children and that there are certain obligations that come with that. Which is fine.

Yeah that's where he's getting confused. If you have sex then you have to be prepared for the possibility you might get pregnant but not the possibility of having a child. Being unwilling to have a child means that that possibility never existed. It therefore cannot be a pre-requisite to having sex.

What perplexes me most though is that he seemingly thinks willingness/preparedness to have a child before engaging in sex is codified into law.

 

[rh1]

I think he is just saying that if you have sex then you have to be prepared for the possibility you might have children and that there are certain obligations that come with that. Which is fine.

Where we differ is that he thinks one of the obligations you have is to not abort the pregnancy whereas I think you have an obligation to abort the pregnancy if you're not able to meet the other obligations involved in raising a child. It's a difference of opinion on what obligations are involved. I think we all agree on the obligations a parent has, once the child is born, we differ on the obligations a pregnant mother has.

If you cannot afford a child, why not use protection that is freely available? Like a responsible adult. Irresponsible adults both male and females cannot be bothered to use protection.

 

[tetrasect]

If you cannot afford a child, why not use protection that is freely available? Like a responsible adult. Irresponsible adults both male and females cannot be bothered to use protection.

Are you seriously under the impression that people don't use birth control and get abortions instead? WTF...

Once again:

With typical use, around 9 out of 100 people using birth control pills will become pregnant within a year.

With typical use, 18 out of 100 people who rely on male condoms for contraception will become pregnant within a year.

With typical use, around 12 out of 100 people who use diaphragms with spermicide will become pregnant within a year.

With typical use, fewer than 1 out of 100 people who use an IUD will become pregnant within a year.

Hormonal IUDs can have similar side effects to those of the pill.

With typical use, fewer than 1 out of 100 people with the implant will become pregnant in a year.

As a hormonal method, side effects can be similar to those of the birth control pill.

With typical use, around 6 out of 100 people receiving these injections will become pregnant within a year.


That is a lot of unwanted pregnancies, even with using protection.

 

[2023]

Are you seriously under the impression that people don't use birth control and get abortions instead? WTF...

Once again:

With typical use, around 9 out of 100 people using birth control pills will become pregnant within a year.

What does that even mean?

Humorously it sounds like if you take the pill, you'd get pregnant without sex.

But again, it doesn't make too much sense. Do they assume sex every day the woman is fertile? Or?

 

[tetrasect]

What does that even mean?

Humorously it sounds like if you take the pill, you'd get pregnant without sex.

But again, it doesn't make too much sense. Do they assume sex every day the woman is fertile? Or?

Those numbers aren't based on clinical studies, they are based the CDC's National Survey of Family Growth and relate to "typical use".

 

[yebocan]

Supremely bad

www.dailymaverick.co.za

 

[Temujin]

 

[airborne]

To many people, yourself included I’m assuming, that’s no parody

 

[Gnarls]

Are you saying it's somehow illegal to have sex if you are not planning to have a child or what exactly is your point here cause honestly you've completely lost me (and please keep it short and concise cause it's getting very tiring).

You should look up what fallacy of incredulity means. All you ever do is strawman peoples arguments. First class idiot.

 

[agentrfr]

Yeah that's where he's getting confused. If you have sex then you have to be prepared for the possibility you might get pregnant but not the possibility of having a child. Being unwilling to have a child means that that possibility never existed. It therefore cannot be a pre-requisite to having sex.

What perplexes me most though is that he seemingly thinks willingness/preparedness to have a child before engaging in sex is codified into law.

I didnt say "willingness/preparedness to have a child before engaging in sex is codified into law"

I said it is irresponsible not to be prepared to have a child before having sex. And using the excuse baby expensive therefore kill is not a just reason to have an abortion as a means of contraceptive.

 

[Gyre]

You should look up what fallacy of incredulity means. All you ever do is strawman peoples arguments. First class idiot.

You don't need to keep signing off every message you send, we know it's you commenting

 

[Gnarls]

You don't need to keep signing off every message you send, we know it's you commenting

weak troll is weak.

 

[tetrasect]

I didnt say "willingness/preparedness to have a child before engaging in sex is codified into law"

I said it is irresponsible not to be prepared to have a child before having sex. And using the excuse baby expensive therefore kill is not a just reason to have an abortion as a means of contraceptive.

It is not irresponsible when your responsibilities don't lie with having a child because you never agreed/planned to have a child. Simple as that. Having sex is not a contract saying that you want a child.
In fact, you have a responsibility not to pop a baby out every 9 months which is why you take birth control in the first place. If birth control fails, you have a responsibility to take an abortion pill if you don't want a child. You are simply correcting for the fact that birth control is not 100% effective.

Point is that you choose the outcome and take responsibility for arriving at that outcome.

You only take on the responsibility of having a child once you make a choice to have a child, not a choice to have sex.

This may not be the best analogy but here it goes:

It's like if you eat a sandwich and some crumbs fall on the floor. If you don't want mice in your house you can sweep the crumbs up, or if you do, you can leave them there and mice will move into your house and you'll have endless entertainment watching their cute antics.
Point is, eating a sandwich doesn't mean you must be prepared or willing to live with mice.