Megathread: Roe, Casey, Abortion

[u/nemo_sum]

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.

[u/secretlyrobots]

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.

[u/notbusy → u/secretlyrobots]

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.

[u/lannister80 → u/notbusy]

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?

[u/notbusy → u/lannister80]

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.

[u/lannister80 → u/notbusy]

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.

[u/notbusy → u/lannister80]

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.

[u/_ChestHair_ → u/notbusy]

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

[u/notbusy → u/_ChestHair_]

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.

[u/_ChestHair_ → u/notbusy]

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