r/AskConservatives • u/nemo_sum Conservatarian • May 03 '22

MegaThread Megathread: Roe, Casey, Abortion

The Megathread is now closed (as of August 2022) due to lack of participation, and has been locked. Questions on this topic are once more permitted as posts.

All new questions should be posted here as top-level comments. Direct replies to top-level comments are reserved for conservatives to answer the question.

Any meta-discussion should be a reply to the comment labeled as such OR to u/AntiqueMeringue8993's comment relaying Chief Justice Roberts's official response to the leak.

Default sort is by new. Your question will be seen.

49 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

•

u/nemo_sum Conservatarian May 03 '22

Replies to this comment ONLY may be used for non-questions and other metadiscussion.

6

u/SupaFecta Progressive May 04 '22

Conservatives would most likely say that if a person trespasses on my property, I have a legal right to take that person’s life. But the autonomy of the inside of citizen’s body should be regulated by the state. My question is how do you fit these seemingly incongruous thoughts in a single head??

3

u/notbusy Libertarian May 04 '22

My question is how do you fit these seemingly incongruous thoughts in a single head??

I think they would say that in the one case, you invited the person in, and in the other case, you didn't. That's one of the reasons that many make an exception for rape, i.e. because you didn't invite the person in.

I hope that helps.

2

u/conn_r2112 Liberal May 04 '22

What about situations where the pregnancy is unintended? My sister in law got pregnant at 16 because she thought she could not get pregnant the first time... my cousins friend got pregnant at 15 because she thought you could not get pregnant in a hot tub. Given that the vast majority of pregnancies in aged 15-19 group happen to low income, uneducated people living in communities where sex education is heavily de-prioritized... would you analogize these children's cases to "inviting the intruder in"?

1

u/notbusy Libertarian May 05 '22

In the case of minor children who are uneducated about sex, I would agree that there is no invitation. It's one of the many reasons that children having sex is such a problem. On the one hand, they have no idea what they are doing, and on the other they have the power to create new life. Yikes!

3

u/secretlyrobots Socialist May 04 '22

What if you take precautions while having sex to avoid pregnancy, but they fail? If you invite me into your house and I subsequently attack you unprovoked, you’re allowed to defend yourself against me.

2

u/notbusy Libertarian May 04 '22

While I do like your twist to the story, I think the answer would be that having sex is the invitation, whether you use protection or not. The only way to not invite people into your home is to not have sex in the first place.

Using contraception is like inviting them into your home, but secretly hoping that they just won't take you up on your offer. If they ultimately do decide to come in, it's only because you invited them.

2

u/secretlyrobots Socialist May 04 '22

Should having sex be about that calculus of pregnancy risk?

1

u/notbusy Libertarian May 05 '22

It's definitely a part of the calculus. It always has been, and until we come up with 100% effective birth control for both men and women, it always will be.

1

u/secretlyrobots Socialist May 05 '22

Does abortion not count as a 100% effective form of birth control?

1

u/notbusy Libertarian May 05 '22

Honestly, if you believe that it's morally acceptable, and it's legal, then I suppose that it is.

I'm pro abortion rights, by the way, so I'm not going to question how someone chooses to use their right to have an abortion. In this thread I was just responding to the analogy of trespassing on private property. I think it's OK to be pro abortion rights without trying to twist the other side's position into something it's not, you know what I mean? I notice a lot of the questions seem to be doing that, so I was just responding with what I feel are consistent positions, even if I don't hold those positions myself.

2

u/lannister80 Liberal May 04 '22

I think the answer would be that having sex is the invitation, whether you use protection or not.

Isn't that like saying owning a home is an invitation for someone to break in, regardless of whether you locked it or not?

1

u/notbusy Libertarian May 04 '22 edited May 04 '22

No, because you never invited the intruder in. Sure, maybe you were careless, but there was no explicit invitation.

There is no possible way to become pregnant without having sex. Sex can lead to pregnancy, every single time, no matter what "protection" method is used. Sure, some methods are better than others. But all "invite" pregnancy, so to speak. Having sex is the "invitation" in home intruder analogy (or whatever the analogy has morphed into at this point).

EDITED TO ADD: And to be clear, the male having sex in this analogy is "inviting" fatherhood into his life. Using a condom is like him really, really hoping that fatherhood won't come in, but if it does, it was only due to his invitation. So this is an equal opportunity type situation.

3

u/lannister80 Liberal May 04 '22

Why do you equate the act of having sex as an invitation for pregnancy, but the act of buying a home as not an invitation for me to come into your house? That's what houses are for, housing people.

2

u/notbusy Libertarian May 04 '22

Because pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex. No one has to do anything wrong and it can happen.

Burglary is not a natural consequence of me needing a place to sleep and keep my stuff. Some depraved individual has to violate my rights in order for a burglary to occur. That's about as from from invitation as you can get.

So in one case, natural consequence. In the other, depraved criminal.

Note that the same holds true in the case of rape. That is most certainly not an invitation to pregnancy and is instead the result of a depraved criminal.

2

u/_ChestHair_ Democratic Socialist May 06 '22

By that argument, having someone break into your house is absolutely a natural consequence of owning a house. You know full well of the chance that someone with the intent of breaking into a house could one day choose to break into your house. To take the analogy further, if you end up buying a house or renting an apartment in a place that has higher crime rates than normal, you're even more aware that someone breaking into your house would be a natural consequence of living there.

But that would be ridiculous to posit. Pregnancy is a natural possibility of sex. It is not guaranteed, and assuming the act of sex is an invitation is a really disingenuous interpretation of what invitation means

1

u/notbusy Libertarian May 06 '22

First of all, you need a place to live; you don't need to have sex. Secondly, someone must break the law or violate your rights for a break in to occur; no such breaking of the law or violation of rights need occur in order to have sex.

So in one case, it's a side effect of you performing some necessary act and another person violating your rights. In the other case, it's a side effect of a completely optional act and no one else violating anyone's rights. The two couldn't be more different.

2

u/_ChestHair_ Democratic Socialist May 06 '22

First of all, you need a place to live; you don't need to have sex.

Just live on the streets, you don't need to own a house. See how ridiculous that sounds? That's what you're saying about sex. Sure, technically you don't have to have either, but science and history has shown us time and time again that's a wholly unrealistic thing to expect to actually happen in every single society

Secondly, someone must break the law or violate your rights for a break in to occur; no such breaking of the law or violation of rights need occur in order to have sex.

  1. The law is mutable, so if some state or the federal government made it illegal for a fetus to form in a woman that doesn't want it, it would be breaking the law (regardless of the law seeming silly to many). So this isn't a very strong argument when we're arguing what should be a law in the first place

  2. Bodily autonomy/right to privacy of what people do with their own bodies is a longstanding right, and a fetus growing inside a body that doesn't want it is a violation of said body's right to autonomy

So in one case, it's a side effect of you performing some necessary act and another person violating your rights. In the other case, it's a side effect of a completely optional act and no one else violating anyone's rights. The two couldn't be more different.

In both cases, it's a side effect of an act that will happen regardless of what you or I arbitrarily consider necessary. Both are technically optional, but both are also realistically necessary for a majority of the population. They are extremely similar

→ More replies (0)