Roe v. Wade
In light of the fact that today marks the eve of ACB’s confirmation vote, I’m curious as to what WSO’s opinion is on Roe v Wade. What do you think about abortion and how the government should get involved?
Trending Content
| +630 | Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 20 | 4d | |
| +42 | In Light of BofA Events Remember What's Important In Life | 0 | 2d | |
| +34 | Did someone hack WSO on LinkedIn? | 12 | 21h | |
| +31 | Is anyone surprised by how much you don’t know? | 9 | 8h | |
| +31 | Best Golf Trip locations | 25 | 22h | |
| +30 | Take Some Time to Smell the Roses… | 1 | 5d | |
| +19 | Firms with a strong Physical fitness culture | 9 | 1d | |
| +19 | Footy in NYC this summer | 1 | 16h | |
| +16 | Thoughts on Stifel’s Sex Scandal? | 11 | 20h | |
| +16 | Snitching on networking calls? | 16 | 1d |
Career Resources
If you are going to create such a controversial topic, you should at least give us your view.
I will but I didn’t want to make my views the center of this thread. Trying to start out as neutral as possible.
So what’s your opinion?
Whether you consider a fetus a person or not, I don’t think anyone, under any circumstances, should be forced to give up his/her bodily autonomy so someone else can live.
How are you defining “bodily autonomy” here?
You can’t force a person to owe part of their body to someone else without consent
By this logic, parents should not be responsible for survival or care of their kids that are born.
Let’s say a child needs an organ transplant. Their mother is the only match, and she says no, then the child ends up dying. Is the mother guilty of murder? No, because you can’t force someone to owe any part of their body to someone else so that the other person can live.
Personally against abortion but think government should have not much say in what a woman choose to do with her own body.
(Not against abortion in few rare cases though - pregnancy due to sexual assault and fetus diagnosed with horrible diseases. Very early term abortion, before the fetus is fully formed, is debatable and should depend on the case).
The horrible diseases note is interesting. What would you consider to be a “horrible disease”?
So basically pro choice...
Yeah but it’s not her own body. That’s a child’s life/death that you’re affecting during an abortion. Sure you can do whatever you want with your own body, but the moment that effects someone else, it is immoral.
The Supreme Court should not be the legislative body, and a dysfunctional Congress is the reason for this. ACB believes that the courts should not be the legislative body and has ruled twice against pro-lifers. All of this is just hysteria to drive Democrats to the polls.
Repealing Roe v Wade wouldn’t directly make abortion illegal. It would kick the issue back to the states and states congresses would be left to decide.
What two cases are you referring to? ACB has certainly leaned more toward pro-life than the alternative
-allowed for death penalty execution to proceed
-ruled for IL's buffer zone law
I personally think abortion is a personal choice and allowing the government to make that decision is wrong. Also, red states are already ass backwards (OK trying to rewrite native american history for example). Religion should not have a place in government because it is nearly always bad.
The abolitionist movement wasn’t pioneered by northern religious groups. Lincoln is said to have had an “encounter” that made him want to abolish slavery. At the time “science” (social Darwinism) was used to justify the horrid conditions slaves faced. The Civil rights act was passed in part due to MLK’s efforts who was a pastor. So I think the religion argument fails here. Certainly preventing a state religion from taking over the government is important. But trying to remove anything that has a remotely religious origin simply because of its origin is impractical and probably discriminatory.
Was pioneered not
At the same point, slavery was also something that was supported/written about in the bible. So the institution of religion itself enforced the practice. Also, at this point in time, religion, especially in developed countries, does way more harm than good
Speaking as someone who has had an abortion, I agree the government should have no say in what women chooses to do with her body.
It's a very difficult and deeply personal decision. No one likes the idea of having any abortion - it is a last resort option. However, I think it is 100% necessary to give a choice. No woman should be forced to be a mother before she is financially and emotionally prepared enough to provide for the child and be a responsible parent.
Woah. Did you consult the baby's father (if known)?
I didn’t. I had only known the person for a couple months at the time. I ended up telling him months later because it was weighing heavily on me. In hindsight, I wish I would have told him prior but I was embarrassed and overwhelmed.
That sounds rough. I’m curious to know if you have any opinions on abortion being limited based off of time in to the pregnancy? Do you feel there is a point the potential mother should know one way or the other?
I think that’s a very tough question. I was lucky I found out early on because I had morning sickness very early on. Personally, I don’t think abortions should be allowed past the first trimester (13 weeks) unless in cases of sexual assault, or for medical reasons, etc. Most women begin to experience morning sickness around 8-10 weeks and will miss their period.
Also, from what I found it is very rare for clinics to perform abortions past 13 weeks except for in extreme cases.
But again, so hard to make a concrete decision because it is such a different situation for everyone...
No one if forcing a woman to be a mother - there's adoption, and there's also not having sex in the first place, which is really a consent to the potential consequences of that action (logically, not saying people today view it that way, but it's the case). I could argue that my decision to murder my business rival is a difficult and deeply personal decision, that I didn't like the idea but it was a last resort.
I would be interested to hear a logical explanation of why it is 100% necessary to give a choice at the juncture at which a woman is already pregnant (as established, engaging in sex, an action with the potential outcome of pregnancy, is a point of choice). Why should government have no say in this matter, but have a say in other matters that involve life and death?
Because the adoption system is great as is. If the government actually cared, they would give out free contraception and have nationally mandated sex ed. Colorado has that and teen pregnancies are way down
Honestly, I think one of the most important key considerations is that abortions will still continue whether they are legal or not. By permitting them up to a certain point in the pregnancy, you are preventing women from getting unsafe procedures that can cause serious infection, infertility, or in some cases death.
Consider the following:
1. Prior to Roe V. Wade, approx. one million women per year were having abortions (illegally)
2. Abortions were the leading cause of maternal death and mutilation - they were being performed unsafely.
3. For those who think that abortion should not be publicly funded: the taxpayer price of supporting a child on welfare is far greater than the price of an Medicaid abortion.
4. From the reading I've done, it seems that whether abortion is legal or not, the rate of abortions doesn't change much. I would argue legalization is far more humane for both the mothers and fetuses... and prevents a lot of awful things from happening like sepsis and uterine perforations.
I think the counterargument of saying that if a person willingly engages in sex that implies acceptance of possible pregnancy is so ignorant... And there are many philosophical arguments against this. One that resonated with me is "The Pro-Choice Argument" by Tanya Luhrmann in the Harvard Crimson.
Why force someone to give birth if the child won't receive the love and care that he/she deserves? Last thing we need are more kids in foster care or those with shitty parents (i.e. couldn't get abortions). Also, I don't remember anything coming out the womb, so for that reason, having abortions shouldn't be considered inhumane IMO. People will do what they want anyway, even if that means going to a dark alley or having an intentional miscarriage. Hopefully people put a lot of thought into it before they do or don't get an abortion.
What would you consider to be the threshold for an adequate amount of love so that the fetus should live as opposed to being aborted? Do you think the majority of kids who grew up in the system would have wished they were aborted, or they would want to live through the difficult situation?
Wouldn't you agree that being a foster child puts you at a huge disadvantage in your early formative years? Also, what about the emotional/psychological impact of not having or knowing your biological parents and family?
As far a love goes, it's not something you can quantify obviously. But parents shouldn't overtly or even covertly resent their child. If you didn't plan for a child, you're probably not going to be too enthusiastic about parenting them. Or maybe the parent(s) don't have the resources to adequately raise the child. That would be lose-lose, child would have a low quality life and taxpayers would be on the hook for welfare and subsidies.
Why take away someone's right to life?
Because it's not "someone" at that point in time. It's a tiny bunch of cells who might, eventually, develop into a human being, but definitely not one then.
Btw, this new holier than thou attitude is getting old pretty quick man. Yeah, we get that you were slaying all the puss out there and then some, and now you've found a new calling or whatever, but gtfoh with that moral superiority crap
Ffs
I’m not necessarily fully against it, however I will say that the “why bring a child into a loveless family” argument is inane.
I would 100% rather be alive and have a chance of making something of myself, than not be alive at all.
Yeah that's why the Ivys, Wall Street, Silicone Valley, etc. are dominated by foster kids. Just look at Mark Zuckerberg's story-- what an inspiration!
You really don't think that your upbringing has anything to do with your ambitious attitude, positive outlook, and general life satisfaction?
Ahhhh yes. Murder is ok if the person being murdered isn't likely to live what you consider a great life - forget about that exception in the law!
I don't remember anything from when I was two. Should my parents have been able to murder me when I was 2? My grandpa has dementia. Can I beat the shit out of him because he won't remember it?
This is one of the saddest posts I've ever seen.
My opinion is that it’s a woman’s choice and my opinion shouldn’t matter (with the exception of super late term abortions where they basically kill the baby right before delivery, I think that’s pretty fucked up).
I’m curious to here what is your cut off for late term? 1 day before , 1 week? 1 month?
I agree. I'm a women and am pro-life for myself generally. However, I think everyone should have a right to an abortion if they want. Therefore I'm pro-choice. Also want to add on that the super late term abortions don't really happen and are used mainly as a rally point for pro-lifers. Abortions that happen in the third trimester are almost always babies that were wanted and the situation is heartbreaking for everyone involved and make up less than 1% of abortions done. It's stuff like the baby not having a brain or an airway. Like do you allow the mother to terminate the pregnancy at 31 weeks or force her to carry her baby without a until delivery and then let it immediately die? It's a shitty situation for all involved and I don't think there is a right answer. That being said, if you're having an abortion in the third trimester unrelated to health issues, then yeah that's royally fucked up.
pro life generally. you can choose to simply not have sex.
I'm a woman (not a person lol). My view on abortion is it is wrong, I don't agree with it. I think the whole 'choice' debate is confused.
It is not a choice of what you do with your body - the choice is whether you choose to have sex or not, and the choice is what form of precaution ie contraception you use (ideally 2 forms at the same time, every time). After that it becomes responsibilities, not choice.
Having said that, I acknowledge there are instances where there is no choice but to abort eg rape, incest. Note that is not a choice. They had no choice to begin with. They abort because they have no choice.
If you abort because your contraception failed or you failed to use contraception or your financial situation or your career aspirations etc, you cannot call that a choice. I think we in society find any excuse to let ourselves off the hook instead of taking responsibility for our actions. I have so many friends that have had abortions/ morning after pill and then people wonder why there is an infertility crisis.
There's still a choice. The woman can still decide not to abort. Not that I'm condemning anyone, but there is literally a choice.
From your comments I'm gathering that you seem to be a virgin and plan to be until being married (correct me If I/m wrong). I'm just curious, has that affected your dating life in any way or would you say guys are fairly understanding of your viewpoint?
You're kind of right =)…I'm in a long-term relationship and I have only ever been with my boyfriend. I didn't really plan for it to happen that way but that's just the way it worked out.. I had two short relationships before him but didn't sleep with them. Maybe it bothered them we didn't sleep together, maybe it didn't but basically we did not just hold hands!. Perhaps I can't speak for all, but I know that my boyfriend was very supportive and understanding. But even then, they say that the pill is 99% effective on its own regardless of your relationship choices. I think the difficulty is remembering to take it daily, at the same time, which otherwise hinders its effectiveness.
I'm pretty pro choice. If America wants to be pro-life, let women collectively make that call. I do not believe that men deserve to be treated as second-class parents, but in this case, I think the one carrying the baby deserves the final say. The late-term argument can be interesting, not to me because I have made up my mind, but can kind of see where people are coming from. However, I still do not think it deserves to be up to anyone but the woman carrying the child. The buck stops there.
Lowkey tho @ everyone on here, what is your thought on cutting it off in the first or second trimester?
Let people do whatever the fuck they want. The entire argument between pro-life and pro-choice hinges on the factor that life inherently has value, and that one such life is more valuable than the other. All life is meaningless. We're on a floating rock in space moving around a massive ball of exploding gas in a universe slowly tending toward absolute entropy. Oh and absolutely nothing happens when we die. If you were a good person nothing happens. If you were a lying cheating stealing piece of shit: nothing still happens. All this shit is meaningless. Smoke crack if you want, have an abortion or two, relax a little it's not that serious.
For real though, overruling Roe v. Wade would just push the question back on the states, so liberal states like NY and Cali can allow abortions all they want, and Alabama can prevent it. What's the big deal? Uncle Sam is too bloated and overarching anyway- and this is speaking as a libertarian.
What happened to you?
Investment Banking.
Anyone who holds a pro-choice position should realize this is the logical conclusion (or, to reverse it, the underlying belief that leads to that position) of holding that position
I thought this was an investment banking forum
Days gone bye buddy
I posted this in the off topic forum. Not sure how you are seeing it differently.
Woman's body = woman's choice and the government should stay out of it. Making abortion illegal would not stop abortion, as many women would have these procedures in unsafe conditions.
Also, the vast majority of people in the US support Roe vs Wade. A supreme court decision over turning Roe Vs Wade would be pretty insulting to US citizens, especially women. However, here we are and when the court is 6-3, it would likely be overturned.
The ruling in the first place is arguably insulting to citizens as many believe the Constitution does not give citizens right to an abortion. Unfortunately, legislators are lazy and have tried to get the judiciary to do its work for the last 50 years.
Yeah but we have to deal with the current situation. If it does get overturned and it probably will, women will be marching all across the US. If women were to withhold sex, I have a feeling conservative guys would suddenly be more open to giving a woman the right to choose.
TBH your second sentence could be extended to any crime. Why have laws at all if people break them?
wondering how many of the commenters here physically have a womb...given wso and the topic i'd think it's close to none
While I see your point to some degree, it's not like a guy is off the hook in the event his SO gets pregnant (unless you are a total jerk, break up and run away) so I think it's fine for men to debate about the issue as well.
I've always been perplexed about why the government pays for it at Planned Parenthood clinics. "A woman's choice" exists in the private domain and doesn't require a government say. PP will bullshit us into believing abortions are an insignificant part of their existence, but that isn't true. PP as a medical center is fine, but as a publicly funded abortion clinic (assuming they want the right to use federal dollars to perform them) is a hefty topic.
Hyde Amendment which has existed for decades has banned federal funding for abortions. When PP was federally funded, it went towards common sense things like birth control access and disease testing. With the new Title X program that blocks any federal funding for any organization that conducts abortions (even if its not with that money), PP isn't taking any federal cash. Main point, the government has never and still does not pay for abortion and I am perpelexed how you made that leap.
"if men could get pregnant, abortion would be an app on your phone"
truth
But they can't, so the comment is pointless
i feel like it made my point pretty fucking concisely. also it was funny. i get double points bro
Look at this map and tell me what kind of country you want to be:
https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws
Morally, I lean against abortion. But in terms of legality I’m completely pro choice. If it’s illegal, it’s going to happen anyway in horrible conditions. I especially think it’s vile for a woman to experiences rape or if she and/ or the child will die and be forced to go through with it all. I can’t fathom that though process of saying, “Sucks to be you but tough luck.”
The abortion debate isn't binary. It's not like full on pro-choice until the day before conception or absolutely 0 cases in which abortion is allowed. What I mean by that is that there are people who aren't pro choice but see rape (the example you brought up) as an exception.
There are also wackos who want to restrict abortion under all circumstances. Male judges and male lawmakers should not be making this kind of decision for a woman. Until these males develop ovaries, they can go fuck off.
There is no one who is pro abortion.
I would never vote Democrat because of this issue.
Do you believe if a woman is raped, she should be forced to carry the baby?
Pariatur rem facere aliquam veritatis mollitia consequatur. In dolorem veniam adipisci totam aperiam. Ut et soluta consequuntur non.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Minima nisi quo dolorem quis. Ea veritatis consequuntur ipsa consequatur. Aliquid a eos commodi. Laudantium veniam ut enim. Hic error suscipit voluptate harum et ut.
Itaque et itaque non pariatur corporis illo velit. Cumque molestiae tempore vero. Beatae repellendus harum reprehenderit fugiat sint reiciendis.
Necessitatibus eum eos doloribus qui. Et maxime labore corporis. Aut voluptatem rerum ratione beatae minus magni voluptatum. Quae consequatur reiciendis ut et ea. Voluptas natus architecto iste numquam recusandae esse corporis.
Assumenda architecto voluptatem totam quae omnis delectus. Ad aliquam rerum recusandae harum autem ad. Ratione ut sapiente aut. Sed possimus aut ut sed hic voluptatum aut voluptatum. Et nam similique inventore. Consequuntur maxime dolorum repellendus. Ea voluptatem provident libero voluptatem ut magni consequatur.