Colorado signs law allowing abortion at ANY POINT in PREGNANCY
- Thread starter Phoenixmgs
- Start date
I mean, abortions being destigmatized, freely available at any hospital, and paid for by the government tends to make getting a timely abortion much easier than in the on-paper more liberal United States.
When It Comes to Abortion, Norway and the United States Are on Different Planets - Dissent Magazine
Carole Joffe: Reproductive Health in Norway
Fun how you keep avoiding justifying why you think it's good outside of "but other people make it work" So, why is petitioning the government to avoid having to be pregnant justified? Are there any other situations you want to give the government control of as it relates to blood, tissue, and organ donation? Anything that might effect you specifically instead of just other people?
Alright, so your opinion is that the government is allowed to force somebody else to use your oven without your consent, permanently warping your oven and risking it breaking just because somebody else wants you to have a cake regardless of how much you like cake, at your own personal cost of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, and also that oven is an other real, actual human being you don't have a right to and not an appliance you're stealing access to to baked a damn cake
That's a shit analogy that falls apart even as cake, is what I'm saying. Break into my house demanding me use my oven and most of my ingredients to make yourself a cake and all you bring is the fucking egg while I have to do the rest of the work at cop-point because I didn't kick you out of the house soon enough? Standard white guy drastic overestimation of his own contribution right there
It's been part of the GOP agenda for as long as I've been an adult, including multi-million dollar efforts and blatant electioneering to get a 6-3 Supreme Court full of blatant political actors. It'll be a "state's rights" issue, and a lot of states have the definition of marriage baked into its laws
Buddy, the fact that ranked choice voting is even a consideration for the democrats puts them miles ahead of the GOP and it's weird you don't see that. 3rd parties in the States are full of clownshoes operations with some of the dumbest people you've ever met and nobody has any funding worth a damn short of the Libertarians, and I'd rather give Nancy PelosI cunniligus than have one of those idiots in charge. Don't get me wrong, I had my "but that doesn't matter, we can all just vote for somebody else" phase too. Difference between you and me is the acknowledgment of reality. You *need* money. You *need* connections. And if you don't have those, pushing left during primaries is much easier than starting your own shit. And man, I don't have those, I can't astroturf a left wing Tea Party. And I'll admit that gives a lot of leeway to dogshit democrats. After all, can you schism the party and voting base to make the Dems irrelevant in less than a year? Because if you can't, you get an unknown number of election cycles going to some of the most personally evil motherfuckers on the planet. Like "on camera high fives after denying veteran care for soldiers exposed to chemical burn pits" evil. "Denying medical aid to emergency workers exposed to massive health problems after major terrorist attacks" evil. And the elephant in the room "saying 10 year old rape victims should try and give birth for her own good" evil
The Democrats Trying to Overturn an Election
The nation’s largest city overwhelmingly approved a referendum to adopt ranked-choice voting a year ago. Now some elected leaders are trying to delay the reform.www.theatlantic.com
Democrats are purposefully pushing out left candidates from elections. Why do you keep voting and supporting this party?
You need more than a third party's promises of "Dude, trust us"
Last edited:
Stop parroting nonsense...
And when have I said anything other than having a time limit? When have I said we can't do what Norway has done? All I have said there needs to be a time limit, that is all. Again, you also have no argument outside of it works in Colorado or there's no 8 month pregnant women running to Colorado. Where's all these suffering women at in Norway caused by this time limit that you say is so bad?I mean, abortions being destigmatized, freely available at any hospital, and paid for by the government tends to make getting a timely abortion much easier than in the on-paper more liberal United States.
When It Comes to Abortion, Norway and the United States Are on Different Planets - Dissent Magazine
Carole Joffe: Reproductive Health in Norwaywww.dissentmagazine.org
Fun how you keep avoiding justifying why you think it's good outside of "but other people make it work" So, why is petitioning the government to avoid having to be pregnant justified? Are there any other situations you want to give the government control of as it relates to blood, tissue, and organ donation? Anything that might effect you specifically instead of just other people?
Alright, so your opinion is that the government is allowed to force somebody else to use your oven without your consent, permanently warping your oven and risking it breaking just because somebody else wants you to have a cake regardless of how much you like cake, at your own personal cost of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, and also that oven is an other real, actual human being you don't have a right to and not an appliance you're stealing access to to baked a damn cake
That's a shit analogy that falls apart even as cake, is what I'm saying. Break into my house demanding me use my oven and most of my ingredients to make yourself a cake and all you bring is the fucking egg while I have to do the rest of the work at cop-point because I didn't kick you out of the house soon enough? Standard white guy drastic overestimation of his own contribution right there
It's been part of the GOP agenda for as long as I've been an adult, including multi-million dollar efforts and blatant electioneering to get a 6-3 Supreme Court full of blatant political actors. It'll be a "state's rights" issue, and a lot of states have the definition of marriage baked into its laws
Buddy, the fact that ranked choice voting is even a consideration for the democrats puts them miles ahead of the GOP and it's weird you don't see that. 3rd parties in the States are full of clownshoes operations with some of the dumbest people you've ever met and nobody has any funding worth a damn short of the Libertarians, and I'd rather give Nancy PelosI cunniligus than have one of those idiots in charge. Don't get me wrong, I had my "but that doesn't matter, we can all just vote for somebody else" phase too. Difference between you and me is the acknowledgment of reality. You *need* money. You *need* connections. And if you don't have those, pushing left during primaries is much easier than starting your own shit. And man, I don't have those, I can't astroturf a left wing Tea Party. And I'll admit that gives a lot of leeway to dogshit democrats. After all, can you schism the party and voting base to make the Dems irrelevant in less than a year? Because if you can't, you get an unknown number of election cycles going to some of the most personally evil motherfuckers on the planet. Like "on camera high fives after denying veteran care for soldiers exposed to chemical burn pits" evil. "Denying medical aid to emergency workers exposed to massive health problems after major terrorist attacks" evil. And the elephant in the room "saying 10 year old rape victims should try and give birth for her own good" evil
You need more than a third party's promises of "Dude, trust us"
You're taking the analogy too literally. The point is it's not a cake. If it was a cake, then like nobody would really care.
Like I told Avnger, stop parroting nonsense. You're not helping.
You don't need money though, you need to teach people/kids to vote for the best candidate. I don't buy whatever is advertised most on TV for anything else. Why would I vote for who's on TV most for an election? An election is not a popularity contest. Please stop with the republicans are the most evil people in the world bullshit, they're slightly worse than the democrats. DIdn't the republicans have a majority in the House and Senate for a bit when Trump was president? And not much changed in America. You see all the stuff you don't like about republicans but look away from all the bad stuff the democrats do. The republicans play the heel to really well, they are working together. You keep saying why you shouldn't vote for republicans but give more no reason to vote for democrats beside they are not republicans, that's not a good reason. Lastly, "Dude, trust us" is better than trusting someone that's proven time and time again to not be trustworthy. It's like staying in an abusive relationship because you think they will change for real this time.
Why do you think it unlikely? The SCOTUS is strongly skewed to the right wing, and the Justice in question said the same approach to Roe could apply to Obergefell.
Yes, that is literally all you have said. No reasoning as to why or what that time limit should be or the justification for why the government should get involved, just that we should have one just because other countries also have them. Why do you want to change Colorado's working laws? What justification are you using to say that the government should enforce pregnancy? At what point is an abortion immoral or unethical and why?
You have not and will not answer these questions.
If you're going to lie, try harder. Literal first page my argument was that adding extra steps would just make emergencies more dangerous. And that's born out to be true in states that clamped down on abortion access.
After that it's, you know, the government shouldn't be allowed to force you into tissue, blood, and organ donation, which doesn't rely on Colorado at all. In fact, Colorado's law is really only useful in my arguments as a counter argument to your insane idea that people will stay pregnant for 8 months just to kill an infant for the thrill of it. Given that pregnancy rates and timeframes aren't significantly different in Colorado mostly just proves that all restrictive laws do is be cruel.
Then maybe it's a horrifically bad analogy that compares a pregnant person to a kitchen appliance in a fantastically unaware way? Good way to tell people not to take your opinion seriously though.
They stacked a 6-3 conservative court who's drastically weakened a huge swath of rights, just for starters.
It can't.
I gave the reasoning tons of time, you just don't read it. Why do you want to change Norway's working laws? What justification are you using to say that the government should allow murder? At what point is it moral to kill a baby? Your questions are stupid because they can all be very easily flipped around. Again, you have conflicting morals here that you cannot prove as one being more moral, thus you have to respect both side's opinions on the matter because that's simply how you treat people as people. And the proof that I'm "right" isn't in proving abortion is morally right or wrong (because you either can't or it would be really really really hard), it's in the fact the vast majority of people are content with the abortion situation in places like Norway because people's views were simply respected.
How are emergencies more dangerous in Norway? When have I ever said we should clamp down on abortion access? Norway's abortion law is cruel?
Analogies are not meant to be taken 100% literally (and the point is comparing the similarities between the 2, not every little difference, cuz then why even have analogies?). You know why everyone was laughing? Because of the truth in the similarities. You're talking about eggs and fucking ingredients or other person's house and that stuff doesn't matter to the analogy. It's the fact that there'd be a cake if you didn't take it out and throw it against the wall, just like there'd be baby. And the key similarity there is existence of both things not that cake = baby because obviously cake =/= baby.
Didn't the democrats let them stack the court? IIRC the republicans didn't like that a new justice was being added at the end of Obama's presidency and sited bullshit reasoning for delaying a new justice and then the democrats let a new justice be added at the end of Trump's presidency when they could've literally did what the republicans did last time. Also, why didn't the democrats codify abortion over the 50 years?
The republicans are the Comedian and the democrats are Dr. Manhattan in this scenario. Why do you want either of them?
Everything he said here applies equally to the right to abortion, which was just overturned. And the Justice specifically argued that the right to abortion is not protected because it doesn't have a "historical" or constitutional basis.
So, he can say they can't use that approach all he likes. They just used precisely that approach in a ruling to overturn a right. And they even said in their ruling that they could do the same again with Obergefell; they call it out by name.
The SCOTUS Justices do not follow a strict or consistent approach to law. They choose whatever interpretation fits their existing political biases.
No, it doesn't. There are many other reasons why Roe was overturned, it wasn't just because of that one reason at all. Everyone knew the flaws of Roe. I'm not against abortion, but I would've voted to overturn Roe based on what I know about it at least. The justices that voted to uphold Roe did so based on that it's precedent vs the legality of it. Gay marriage doesn't have the same issues so just stop with the fear mongering.
Which reasons for its overturning do you believe are inapplicable to Obergefell?
Also, even if there are alternative arguments for protecting Obergefell, the sole argument the video makes is one that DOES apply equally to Roe and Obergefell.
Yes, your reasoning being "There should be a time limit I won't define", "I think it works fine on other countries" and "it's immoral to kill a baby, no I won't define when that happens"
I do not believe a government should be able to force somebody to be medical equipment.
There is zero murder as a fetus is not a person. For that matter, rescinding unconsented medical care is not murder
Never, and that's not what's happening
Lmao, see above
No. I do not, in fact, have to respect the opinion that the government should be allowed to force people to permanently alter their bodies and risk death at their own expense to provide medical succor to a party they did not consent to.
Argumentum ad pupulum is a logical fallacy, not an argument. And they're literally looking to expand the abortion timeframe in Norway, so I kinda doubt "the vast majority of people" are content about the abortion situation in Norway
1)We are not Norway, our laws require shit like "the fetus's "heartbeat" has to be non-detectable, even if there's a twin in there that's definitely dead."
2)Literally this thread about Colorado
3)Yes. As much as it's far, far easier to get an abortion in Norway as opposed to most places in the US, yes.
Okay? And? This is driving your political belief that governments should be involved because?
A cake *isn't* a cake until it's a cake. That it might be a cake later is irrelevant
...they couldn't, unlike the GOP at the end of the Obama presidency the Dems didn't have control of the senate at the end of the trump presidency. Do you honestly believe a majority Dem Senate approved Barrett in 8 days?
Lmao.
Last edited:
Everything the Supreme Court can rule on shares the issue that the Supreme Court has a majority that reasons backward from the desired conclusion, a conclusion which is informed by anti-worker and christofascist nonsense.
The 9th and 14th amendments make gay marriage rock solid. You must've watched a completely different video then.
Nope, you missed it all again when I spelled it all out.
Abortion laws don't force women to be medical equipment, most have choice built-in.
So killing a baby one second outside the womb is murder but one second before leaving the womb is not murder? They just magically became a person in that time? That doesn't make sense to anyone. That's why when you people see the murder of a pregnant woman in media, it quite a different emotional reaction vs just a woman getting killed.
When the tables are flipped (and you're in the minority) and the people that make law/policy don't take input from you at all is how you cause this very bad polarization happening right now in the US. This is taking us to a very bad place (that's far worse than any abortion law will result in) if we continue on this path.
Where's massive abortion protests in Norway? Just because people feel the time frame might be too restrictive doesn't mean they aren't content, they can just think it could be better. You can be content with anything but want something better.
1) What does our laws have to be XYZ have anything to do with my argument and our conversation? Am I talking about heartbeats and whatnot? I even said the time frame isn't that important as long as it's enough time to make a choice.
2) Semantics argument, you know what I mean by abortion access.
3) So you're saying Norway's law is cruel? Where's Norway's suffering women all at?
If it's irrelevant, why's people's emotional reaction to a pregnant woman dying far different than if she wasn't pregnant?
I did put in the IIRC.
What have the democrats actually done that merits you vote for them?
Yeah, until the Supreme Court says that gay men aren't discriminated against in marriage because they can marry women same as straight men. It's like you don't realize that the Supreme Court is who determines what's constitutional or not. There's no higher court to say they're wrong.
It was apparently written in invisible ink. What time frame are you looking at?
Yes they do. Particularly after whatever arbitrary time limit you say they should have but absolutely refuse to define
Laws have to be arbitrary by definition. And if a fetus is viable and one second away from delivery, then an abortion is just delivery. Literally nobody is gonna murder it.
But fine: I will compromise and say that abortions are illegal when a woman is in labor and crowning, excepting for rape, incest, and health of the pregnant person, but legal in all other circumstances, happy?
...who gives a shit about fiction? Why are you bringing this up? Fucks sake, if we're gonna be using media as a benchmark for real actual laws, animal abuse would be a harsher crime than murder.
That's almost literally my status quo. You are threatening me with the world that exists in reality
Your dumbass better learn how to Google instead of assuming
Thousands protest in Norway against restricting abortion
Thousands of protesters demonstrated in Norwegian cities on Saturday against restricting women's access to abortion, the subject of talks between the ruling minority coalition and a small party seeking to join the government.
www.reuters.com
Like shit dude, I'd care about this less if abortions were freely available at any hospital with a gynecology department for anybody that wanted one and paid for with taxes if they had a time limit, but that's not this fucking country by a long fucking shot. We got waiting periods, we got out of pocket costs that *specifically* can't be government funded, we got restrictions on centers that leave a huge chunk of people needing to flee to other states, we have specific bullshit regarding "viability" that Norway doesn't have, and we have dipshit politicians arguing that there should be zero abortions regardless of timeframe or circumstances inducing rape and health, to the point of arguing against fucking birth control.
So that skews to what I'm gonna rogue for, because fuck compromising with *any* of that bullshit.
That is not useful as law. "Enough time to make a choice" is the entire length of pregnancy far as I'm concerned, what's it to you? Laws are blunt instruments and have to be specific, unless you want rich white people to be living by far laxer rules than everybody else.
You are literally calling Colorado's law immoral. Sorry for assuming that means you want to clamp down on it.
Let me learn the language and fly over there real quick.
Fuck if I know, mine isn't. Dead person is dead person. If I were being uncharitable, I'd say it's because a disturbing amount of people care more about fetuses more than the ambulatory piece of medical equipment carrying it around.
Well, unlike 3rd parties they can actually win elections sometimes. Occasionally they put forward some useful legislation, though you usually have to bully them quite a bit first
Let's see if the current Justices are likely to agree.
So, Obergefell v. Hodges was decided 5 - 4. A single vote would've shifted it the other way. Four supreme court justices disagreed with you then and didn't want it passed.
Those four who voted against are Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Scalia. So all Republicans.
The five who voted in favour are Sotomayor, Kagan, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer. So four Democrats and one Republican.
Since then, 3 of the 4 dissenting Republicans are still on the Court. So we can count them to vote against Obergefell if its relitigated.
And who's gone? Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, Scalia. So three who voted in favour (including their only Republican vote), and one who voted against.
Which way is this likely to shift the votes, then? The replacements are.... three Republicans (and more extreme ones than Kennedy) and one Democrat.
You are relying entirely on three new Republican justices sharing the point of view that the Democrats did, rather than the point of view that their fellow Republicans on the court do.
I dont think Amendments or the Constitution would stop them from removing gay marriage rulings
Edit: They didn't use law or the constitution to remove Roe. They can do that to any law