Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > News & Issues > Any Thoughts on Neil Gorsuch

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

Any Thoughts on Neil Gorsuch

Daniel.W.Evensen posted this thread...
Feb. 1 at 1:00 pm

Just last night, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch as Supreme Court Justice. Any thoughts? Comment? Disagreements?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
The-Pink-NinjaThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 1 at 6:12 pm

Well, I haven't heard much on the matter, been busy with school and stuff, but I can definitely doubt it's any sort of good news for anyone who's not a straight, white man -_-

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Daniel.W.Evensen replied...
Feb. 2 at 11:36 am

Wait, are your for or against straight white men? Because that is what Neil Gorsuch is.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Feb. 2 at 2:46 pm

I'm not against them. It's just that they're not the ones who need the help right now. Right now the ones that need the help are the LGBTQ+ community, the Black community, the Muslim community, etc.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 2 at 6:36 pm

Hooray for a pro-life Supreme Court Justice! The preborn babies are definitely among those who need the most help right now, what with a million ab.ortions a year in the U.S. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Feb. 2 at 7:42 pm

Quite honestly, I doubt that the Supreme Court will move to ban a.bortion. It's more likely that they try to make it a state-by-state case. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Feb. 2 at 8:06 pm

600000 is a pretty long way from 1000000.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 3 at 8:34 pm

Making it a state-by-state case would be a step in the right direction, though, don't you think? :)
 
There've been over 59,000,000 a.bortions since Roe v. Wade. That averages out to over a million a year. Anyway, the number is beside the point--if you believe a.bortion is wrong, as I do, then one a year would be far too many. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Feb. 6 at 7:44 pm

Depends on what you think the right direction is.
A.bortion's a tricky subject. Allow it, and we have the current situation (which you very clearly dislike); ban it, and we get people who try to do it themselves... which is completely unsafe.
If you want my stance on it, I would consider myself near the middle of the spectrum. I do not like the idea of a.bortions, especially not if it's just because someone was careless. But in the case of ra.pe or in.cest, it's not your fault. So for that reason, and the fact that I don't think the government should be able to control your body, I would side pro-choice with conditions: 1) I would like more effective education so as to hopefully prevent accidental preg.nancy, 2) I would like the father to be involved in the decision (except in cases of ra.pe/in.cest), and 3) I would prefer it to happen in the first trimester and not later.
I doubt that this will be the case, but hey.
 
(And seriously, it filters "preg.nancy"?)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 7 at 9:13 pm

(Yeah, these filters are nuts...)
 
Regarding r.ape and in.cest, most a.bortions aren't due to those situations. More to the point, the baby shouldn't be punished for the father's crime.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Feb. 8 at 9:13 pm

Most aren't, that's true.
But the mother should not be punished either.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Feb. 9 at 6:56 am

Sorry if you've answered these questions before, Lucy-Agnes, but I don't remember what your stance is and I'm curious to know. First, do you support, as a matter of public policy, making cont.raceptives more widely available and making sure people know how to use them properly? Second, do you believe it's morally right or wrong to forcibly remove someone's kidney without their consent in order to save another person's life?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 9 at 11:18 am

@wolvesandwilderness:
Is a baby a punishment?
 
@stuntddude:
I don't support making cont.raceptives more widely available, because I believe they encourage having s.ex outside marriage, which in turn leads to more a.bortions as well as all sorts of other problems. There is a very logical argument that all the immorality in our society today (much of which, it's true, you wouldn't consider immorality at all) is the fruit of contraceptives. 
 
I think forcibly removing someone's kidney without their consent in order to save another person's life would be morally wrong. I think. Because taking someone's kidney without their consent would be morally wrong in itself, right? And the ends does not justify the means. The principle of double effect doesn't apply here because the act of taking the kidney is not the same as the act of saving the life. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Feb. 9 at 3:03 pm

I don't consider babies a punishment. Then again, I have never been se.xually assaulted, nor does everyone share my viewpoint. I would think that contr.aceptives would be a good thing- more contr.aceptive use means less ab.ortions needed, right?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Feb. 9 at 5:04 pm

"Is a baby a punishment?"
 
In the sense that an unwanted pre.gnancy is punishing, yes.
 
"I don't support making cont.raceptives more widely available, because I believe they encourage having s.ex outside marriage, which in turn leads to more a.bortions as well as all sorts of other problems"
 
What specific evidence leads you to believe that this is true.
 
"There is a very logical argument that all the immorality in our society today (much of which, it's true, you wouldn't consider immorality at all) is the fruit of contraceptives."
 
If you have a logical argument, I'd love to hear it.
 
"The principle of double effect doesn't apply here because the act of taking the kidney is not the same as the act of saving the life."
 
In this hypothetical situation, if there are no willing donors, then forcibly harvesting a kidney is the only way to save the person's life. As harvesting the kidney is a part of the transplant process, and the transplant process is the act that directly saves the person's life, you could argue that the act of taking the kidney and the act of saving the life are one and the same.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Feb. 9 at 9:17 pm

Of course, unplanned p.regnancies are scary things--I'm not denying that. But going through an unplanned p.regnancy is a much smaller punishment than being killed. There's a quote somewhere in The Scarlet Letter that I really love--Hawthorne points out that where mankind punished Hester's crime by giving her a life of shame and isolation, God punished Hester's crime by giving her a child who was the subsequent light of her life. I think that applies very well here.
 
Regarding c.ontraceptions leading to immorality, just think about it. When you have access to c.ontraceptives, of course you're going to think, "I can have s.ex safely now." All natural consequences of your actions are stripped away. You're left thinking of s.ex as something done primarily for pleasure; babies don't come into the picture at all, nor does the need for real commitment to your partner. In a world without co.ntraceptives, people would generally think twice before they have s.ex. They wouldn't want to "risk" pr.egnancy unless they were in a situation where they had a committed, loving partner to help them raise the baby in a stable, loving home. So there's less s.ex outside marriage. In a culture that sees con.traceptives as a necessity and s.ex as no more sacred than a frosty or a hot bath, people aren't going to be as careful about s.ex. They'll think, "I'm on con.traceptives, I'm covered." And they might be covered, most of the time... But chances are the same people who are careless about when they have s.ex are careless about when they take their p.ills, at least some of the time. Do you really think that all the women who are faced with unplanned p.regnancies were totally without c.ontraception? 
 
Just look at what's happened to our society since c.ontraception entered the picture in the 1960s. A.bortion has been legalized. Divorce rates have gone up. Teenagers have s.ex left and right. We've got a p.ornography epidemic going on. G.ay marriage is being pushed as normal...and so are all sorts of per.verted behaviors like cr.oss-dre.ssing and tra.nsg.enderism and on and on and on. I don't want to get into a big heated argument about whether these things are right or not--I know I'll be called out as a bigot for saying those last few things are "per.verted," even though I cherish no ill-will towards anyone--but the point remains. Stay with me here. In a society where c.ontrac.eption is the norm, our beautiful, dignified human s.exu.ality is seen as nothing but a machine to crank pleasure out of. The result? Rampant im.morality and the decay of the family.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Feb. 9 at 10:26 pm

I'm posting this in chunks because of the filters.
 
All natural consequences of your actions are stripped away.

Here's something interesting: In 1960, the Netherlands had 18 teen preg.nancies per 1,000- in 2015, it was 4. The U.S. went from 85 to 21 per 1,000. I used teen preg.nancies because those are unplanned the vast majority of the time. At my school, there is a Dutch exchange program; the teacher who runs it says that the teenagers there are not forbidden from having s.ex, as long as they are mature enough- they are provided with contra.ceptives. As a result, less unplanned preg.nancies. But they still have a far better se.x ed program than we do, and therefore know the consequences of their actions.


You're left thinking of se.x as something done primarily for pleasure...

Because it isn't just to repr.oduce anymore...


In a world without co.ntraceptives, people would generally think twice before they have se.x.

The countries with the lowest rates of cont.raceptive use are in Africa. Some of the highest fe.rtility rates are in Africa.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Feb. 9 at 10:30 pm

But chances are the same people who are careless about when they have s.ex are careless about when they take their pills...

1. In a relationship outside a marriage or even dating, the people involved aren't necessarily careless. They're interested. They get together. That doesn't mean they're not fully aware and prepared for the consequences.

2. While not 100 percent reliable, co.ntra.cepti.ves do a pretty good job- male c.on.do.m? 85 percent effective. The pi.ll? 92 percent effective. Those are in actuality, not theorectical- a low chance of becoming pr.eg.nant, even with the use of only one.
 
Do you really think that the women who are faced with unplanned p.regna.ncies were totally without c.ontrac.eption?

Totally? No. The majority of? Yes.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Feb. 9 at 10:32 pm

Just look at what's happened to our society since c.ontraception entered the picture in the 1960s.

The number of divo.rces correlates with the number of marriages. You can look at the two graphs on this website, if you'd like: look up div.orce rates by decade and click on the first result. Should be the Washington Post. I'd like to see how contra.ceptives cause divo/rce. As for teenagers having s.ex left and right... that rate has actually gone down since the 90s. If your theory about contra.ceptives was true, then this number should go up because of the availability and advancement in technology. And I won't argue with you about g.ay marriage being moral or not... but don't you think that has more to do with all the civil rights movements like women's suff.rage and ending segre.gation? If one push for equality was successful, then why not theirs?


...our beautiful, dignified human s.exu.ality is seen as nothing but a machine to crank pleasure out of. The result? Rampant im.morality and the decay of the family.

That's assuming that s.ex is only for the purpose of repr.oduction. Also, rampant im.morality is highly subjective and I'd say things have actually gotten better. Decay of the family, I might agree with to a certain point, but not because of this im.morality you're talking about.
 
If you are against a.bortions- which you've made it clear that you are- then aren't contra.ceptives better than the 'need' for an ab.ortion?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Feb. 10 at 5:12 am

To be clear, I'm interested in what specific evidence leads you to believe that better access to cont.raceptives leads to more abo.rtions. All you've given so far is conjecture and guesswork, which is not the same thing.
 
"Just look at what's happened to our society since c.ontraception entered the picture in the 1960s."
 
Rates of murder, violent crime, ra.pe, and domestic abuse have gone down. Standards of living increased dramatically, including greater median wealth and far superior health care. Smallpox, Polio, and many other diseases have been entirely or almost entirely eradicated. Civil rights had a heyday. Demographic representation in government greatly improved. Computers and the internet were invented. The U.S. space program landed humans on the moon and allowed us to explore the solar system.
 
Are all those things also the fault of cont.raceptives? Correlation does not imply causation. Assuming that everything that's happened since the 60s is a direct result of improvements in cont.raception does not constitute a logical argument, it constitutes a logical fallacy.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback