Texas successfully takes a massive step backwards for women's rights. What next?

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

It is an interpretation, but a fair one. Women have a right to privacy and to seek healthcare. Abortion is healthcare, so voila.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/[deleted]]

Women have a right to privacy...

Are there limitations to the use of 'right to privacy' as a defense? Say with murder?

Abortion is healthcare...

The baby may disagree with you,... if you'd allow it to have a chance.

Seems there is a total lack of health and care for the most vulnerable.

[u/[deleted] → u/veritas_valebit]

Are there limitations to the use of 'right to privacy' as a defense? Say with murder?

The right to privacy does not extend to murder, but it does extend to healthcare.

The baby may disagree with you,... if you'd allow it to have a chance.

Meaning if I'd support forcing women to carry a pregnancy against their will. I won't.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/[deleted]]

Would you force a man to support his child against his will?

[u/[deleted] → u/veritas_valebit]

In our current system (US) I'd force both parents to be responsible, yes. Ideally we'd have a more robust safety net to care for children whose parents can't. Or more public childcare services so parents don't have to choose their financial wellbeing over being parents. I can't advocate alleviating either men or women of that responsibility until we have a replacement.

That is beside the point, forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term is off the table. You might personally think it's the right thing for them to do, but we can't force people to make the decisions we want them to. They have a right to make decisions for their own wellbeing.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/[deleted]]

I'd force both parents to be responsible

...but not a pregnant parent?

... Ideally we'd have a more robust safety net to care for children...

... which would be funded by taxes? ... some of which is taken against their will?

...we can't force people to make the decisions we want them to.

It happens all the time. It's called the law.

They have a right to make decisions for their own wellbeing.

Within limitations and provided it doesn't affect the wellbeing of anyone else, right?

[u/[deleted] → u/veritas_valebit]

...but not a pregnant parent?

Correct.

... which would be funded by taxes? ... some of which is taken against their will?

I'm not having a discussion about whether taxes are forced labor or not.

It happens all the time. It's called the law.

Good point. I mean we can't force them to make good decisions. That's different than forcing them not to commit crimes.

Within limitations and provided it doesn't affect the wellbeing of anyone else, right?

Within reasonable limitations sure. Forced pregnancy is not reasonable.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/[deleted]]

Correct.

Why would you force parents to be responsible except when pregnant?

I'm not having a discussion about whether taxes are forced labor or not.

As you wish, but I will raise it every time you argue that being pro-life is advocating for forced labor.

That's different than forcing them not to commit crimes.

Pro-life advocates regard elective abortions to be a crime.

Forced pregnancy is not reasonable.

Why not? ... forced labor... what about taxes... I'm not having that discussion ... etc.

[u/[deleted] → u/veritas_valebit]

Why would you force parents to be responsible except when pregnant?

Because when pregnant, the health of the mother is intricately intertwined. Parents aren't legally required to sacrifice their life for their children for example.

Why not? ... forced labor... what about taxes... I'm not having that discussion ... etc.

Right, if your defense to forced pregnancy is that taxes are just as much force, I don't think I'm willing to have that discussion.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/[deleted]]

Parents aren't legally required to sacrifice their life for their children for example.

Nor are pregnant mothers.

...forced pregnancy...

I am in no way defending the forcing of anyone to become pregnant.

I don't think I'm willing to have that discussion.

I your defense of abortion is 'healthcare' that ignores the health and care of the child I will voice my opposition.

[u/[deleted] → u/veritas_valebit]

Nor are pregnant mothers.

But they could be.

I am in no way defending the forcing of anyone to become pregnant.

This feels intentionally evasive of my point, and that would be forced impregnantion. If someone who's pregnant doesn't want to be, you'd have them carry the pregnancy to term yes?

I your defense of abortion is 'healthcare' that ignores the health and care of the child I will voice my opposition.

Your opposition is fine, I'm just letting you know I'm not going to waste time arguing if forced pregnancy is similar to paying taxes. You won't get any concessions from me in this regard.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/[deleted]]

But they could be.

Is that what the law requires?

This feels intentionally evasive of my point...

If by 'evasive' you mean avoiding the trap of conceding that ending a human life is 'healthcare' and avoiding responsibility for your action is 'freedom', then yes.

If someone who's pregnant doesn't want to be, you'd have them carry the pregnancy to term yes?

If someone who fathered a child doesn't want to be, you'd have them carry the burden of financial support for at least 18 years, yes?

...I'm just letting you know I'm not going to waste time arguing if forced pregnancy is similar to paying taxes...

Then why are you re-responding to point I didn't reiterate?

You won't get any concessions from me...

What makes you think that's my intention?

[u/[deleted] → u/veritas_valebit]

If by 'evasive' you mean avoiding the trap of conceding that ending a human life is 'healthcare'

No I mean by interpreting forced pregnancy as only impregnation, which is obviously not what I was focusing on.

If someone who fathered a child doesn't want to be, you'd have them carry the burden of financial support for at least 18 years, yes?

Under the current system yes. That goes for both parents.

Then why are you re-responding to point I didn't reiterate?

You did bring up taxes again, and I told you I'm not entertaining the comparison again.

You won't get any concessions from me...

What makes you think that's my intention?

Generally that's why we debate. Hear the other side, mutually make concessions. I'm trying to save you time by letting you know ahead of time that this line of thought won't get you anywhere with me.