I don't see anything productive coming from this line of questioning. Yes, a soul is the eternal nature of all human beings. No, there is not a limit. No, I do not think laws should have any basis in these answers.
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion
- Thread starter Piscian
- Start date
Opposition to the status quo is not inherently progressive.
Sadly for you, "progress" is not a meaningless concept.
For the past few hundred years, our society has been undergoing rapid and radical change. "Progress" and "reaction" are not just defined in the context of the existing situation, but in the context of this broader transformation and the direction society has been progressing for longer than any of us have been alive.
Wanting to alter society in order to conform with your religious beliefs because you imagine those beliefs to be eternal, unquestionable and above human reason or negotiation is not and will never be progressive.
I have no sincere theological views, let alone specific ones. The definition of progress includes secularism because the modern world we live in now has been created through secularization, and at the expense of the kind of unquestioned religious authority you seem to believe is desirable.
I don't.
Believing that abortion is wrong as a matter of personal faith is entirely compatible with a secular view.
The problem arises when you cross the line from private belief to the enforcement of universal truth, when you expect to be able to force others to accept your belief that abortion is wrong without demonstrating how that belief is reasonable in terms other than your personal religious faith.
I'm aware that both those statements are absolute horseshit, and whoever fed them to you has probably had sex with a minor at some point.
That doesn't answer the question, and even if it did your ability to answer the question does not and will never make the answer true.
Any idiot could answer the question based on what they personally believe. The problem is that all the answers are equally meaningless. You know this on some level, it's why you keep trying to drag the conversation back to this question of personhood because it's the one arena where your sad unearned convictions can stand on equal footing.
It doesn't matter when personhood begins. At best its a stupid exercise in pointless philosophical debate. The important question is how we deal with the plurality of answers when faced with the impossibility of definitive truth. The reasonable answer, the progressive answer, is to allow (to the greatest extent possible) for each person who is capable of having beliefs to live in accordance with those beliefs.
Last edited:
A snippet:
It goes on to say that the condition of the fetus convinced doctors that the pregnancy wasn't viable, but thanks to Texan laws, she was forced to endure pain, vomiting and hyperthyroidism for five days before doctors were finally allowed to terminate the pregnancy.
And this is the real point of these laws- not to protect babies, but to punish sinful women. After all, bad things only happen to bad people, so this woman must be particularly evil to have spawned such an imperfect child, and therefore she must be made to suffer.
It's worth noting that a disturbing number of people still think this even though this was a wanted pregnancy too. Prosperity gospel writ large
Are you aware of "the Progressive Era"? Do you know that the usage of "progressive" we are discussing originated as a description of Christian factions before being applied to politics? That the social reforms of the Progressive Era were often informed by religion and counter to liberalism, the most notable example being the prohibition movement?
Your conception of political progress does not match the actual history of the term.
Your definition of progress includes secularism because you specifically like it. That is all.
And you would be extremely hard pressed to find me advocating for unquestioned religious authority. My argument is very simple: a human being is a human being, we have laws against homicide, those laws should be consistent. No references to religion, or God, or my personal morality. There is less moralizing in my stance than almost anyone here.
Aaaaaaand it looks like I have won the debate. Thanks for trying, but you have degraded to name-calling, a strong indication that you can't answer me in a meaningful way.
a) That has nothing to do with progressivism. Again, prohibition was a progressive movement. Arguably THE progressive movement.
b) Even in the liberal perspective you are espousing, you forgot the highly necessary caveat "without taking those privileges away from others".
Not with the covid vaccines, it's not, and someone not getting a vaccine only affect themselves. Parents that buy pop, guess who else is drinking that? You act like I've made some formal request to ban pop and only pop. I only use pop because it's the main liquid candy out there and just use it for shorthand to encompass it all. I'd ban anything with X amount of sugar per 12oz or whatever like everyone's favorite morning dessert in a cup too. It was hilarious how the Cook County pop tax didn't affect stuff like Starbucks that's even worse for you than pop. Sugar even killed more people in 2020 than covid did, but you wanna put all your resources into stopping covid (that was/is impossible) when said covid response had people eating and drinking even more unhealthy than normal. Why do you think excess deaths are up so much just 2 years after the initial covid surge?
So if you can't force prisoners to work, that means they don't have to cook their food or make their beds or do their laundry or clean their cells...
Can a hospital not recognize power of attorney or not?
You're saying none of these amendments are doing anything and all rights like gay marriage and whatnot are gonna be reversed.
You keep acting like your empirically right when you're not? You making statements that are far more dramatic than they need to be and act like you're somehow right.
So a mother doesn't have to support a child at all after birth?
I've never mentioned a single religious argument the entire time...
There's probably on a very very very very small extreme minority that is advocating that women must stay pregnant even when their life is endangered. You're bringing up these extreme arguments (like harvesting organs) to prove you're right when that's not the argument at hand in the 1st place. Did I ever say a woman should be forced to stay pregnant if it endangers her life?
I don't know, I've said it many times, and thus why there should be compromise as no side is empirically right. The point is just about everyone would agree at some point before birth killing the baby is very wrong. That's all I gotta prove because then that means there is at least some point where abortion is wrong vs you're opinion that abortion is fine no matter what.
Why? No one has proven either side is empirically wrong.
The fact that a baby can be a person before being birthed means there's a debate at hand at when that occurs. I'm not trying to prove abortion is wrong because a baby is a person 1 second before birth, it's the fact it puts in question basically the whole thing. And, again, how are you gonna prove exactly when that occurs and prove the other side wrong?
And why is that? Why is that better than the other side's same surface level argument?
You keep inserting all these caveats that like nobody is really disagreeing with (outside of the extreme minority). The choice for abortion in the main argument is the woman choosing to kill the fetus because they don't want to have the baby (not because of some medical issue where the mother may die). Also, I'm not a conservative.
Why choose to argue something very intangible? I would agree there's no loss of dignity or happiness for not being able to marry because you still can live your life the same with the one you love. That's the reason why I never got why anyone wanted to ban them from getting married as I'm like "you do realize they are still gonna live together and all that so what do you think you're actually stopping?" The inequality comes into to play when married people get any legal/government benefits for being married, which are very tangible things.
I only looked through Part 1 because it should fucking be in part one.
One very recent study is not settled science... Whenever there's a study that says what you want the science to be, it magically becomes settled science but when there's a study that disagrees with your view, it's somehow not settled science.
Healthcare is so vandalized by both sides you can actually just merely not pay and win the court case because hospitals don't actually make legally binding agreements with you most of the time.
Most of the Constitution refers to vague or intangible concepts. Like it or not, this is how a huge number of Constitutional legal decisions are decided.
I am shocked!
...well, shocked you even bothered that.
No: whenever there's an overwhelming consensus it becomes settled science.
Or at another time, someone can be bankrupted by the bill. As per Republican efforts.
This just in, covid vaccines do not prevent serious illness or death from covid
Not without getting duly compensated, sure. Though if they want to live in their own filthy cell, that's on them
And if somebody's married and hasn't formally gone through the process to give their power of attorney to somebody else, a very common occurrence given how powerful that is?
4 voted against last time, and that faction has more power now...
...okay, so what's the moral and ethical case for government mandated forced pregnancy? What is the moral and ethical case for requiring 10 year old rape victims to remain pregnant, A THING WHICH IS CURRENTLY GOVERNMENT MANDATED IN MORE THAN A FEW STATES. I'm not being more dramatic than I need to be, this shit *is currently happening*.
Correct. There are *lots* of cases where that does not happen, especially when, say, a mother dies during birth. We've figured this shit out for literally tens of thousands of years.
Correct. I want to hear your non-religious argument for using the government to forve somebody to stay pregnant.
Don't need very many people involved when gerrymandering and court control is a thing
Abortion is banned or severely limited in a number of states. Here's where things stand | CNN Politics
Laws that ban abortion or severely restrict the procedure have gone into effect in about a dozen states after the US Supreme Court ended a constitutional right to abortion on June 24.
www.cnn.com
If you are for forcing pregnant people to stay pregnant, a process which permanently alters their bodies, drains their resources, causes immense pain, and always carries the risk of injury and death, why *not* take somebody's extra kidney or bone marrow or chunk of liver if it saves a life? Not even blood, an easily replaceable substance, for the purpose of saving a life?
Yes. Pregnancy is inherently risky and you are for forcing somebody to remain pregnant at some undefined point in the pregnancy
And you've never proved that. Never even tried to prove that beyond the asinine "but it's immoral to kill a fetus that's currently moving through the birth canal seconds from birth for no reason" like that's a thing that ever happens.
That is not a "fact". Legally speaking, that is not a thing.
I do not have to. My argument is entirely agnostic towards personhood and is just as valid if the person that has to use another's body for survival is a 35 year old computer programmer named Chuck.
The other side's surface level argument is that women are breeding stock and not full human's with bodily autonomy
I think people are miscontruing what a Conservative is.
Yes, they are obsessed with tradtion
No, that doesn't mean their idea and policies have any basis in tradition
Tradition, to a Conservative, is only what they say is tradtional. I.e. its all made up. Sometimes it will be agreed upon by the general public. Sometimes is based on a tradition but warpped to suit the Conservatives needs. Sometimes it made up whole cloth
Funnily enough, Progressives are very traditional. Much of what Progressive do is use actual established and agreed upon traditions and apply that to everyone
Eg. When Progressives are championing women or minority voting, they are not changing tradition. They are apply tradition to everyone. Same sex marriage and trans rights is another example. It's not changing tradition at all. It's just apply traditions appropriately
So, when some says 'Opposition to the Status Quo is not Progressive' this is true. The biggest problem is that the Status Quo is not actually the Status Quo. Someone just called it the Status Quo so they can win an argument
Yes, they are obsessed with tradtion
No, that doesn't mean their idea and policies have any basis in tradition
Tradition, to a Conservative, is only what they say is tradtional. I.e. its all made up. Sometimes it will be agreed upon by the general public. Sometimes is based on a tradition but warpped to suit the Conservatives needs. Sometimes it made up whole cloth
Funnily enough, Progressives are very traditional. Much of what Progressive do is use actual established and agreed upon traditions and apply that to everyone
Eg. When Progressives are championing women or minority voting, they are not changing tradition. They are apply tradition to everyone. Same sex marriage and trans rights is another example. It's not changing tradition at all. It's just apply traditions appropriately
So, when some says 'Opposition to the Status Quo is not Progressive' this is true. The biggest problem is that the Status Quo is not actually the Status Quo. Someone just called it the Status Quo so they can win an argument
Not only that, but one of the counterarguments defending this was "if the ten-year-old girl has the baby, it can help heal the trauma of the rape". How much do you want to bet that's going to be a popular argument for forcing rape victims to carry to term elsewhere?
The 14th amendment isn't nearly that vague.
It should be the main argument and it's not even in Part 1, not my fault they were shitty lawyers. The one case I was a juror on, the plaintiff's lawyer was a real shitty lawyer, argued that a cop should've used a gun instead of his fist as a gun is less excessive (I almost broke out laughing when he made that argument).
LMAO, one study is not overwhelming consensus.
Why do you constantly have to always blame republicans for everything, you act like the healthcare industry only lobbies the republicans. Both parties like the status quo with healthcare. If the democrats so wanted better healthcare, where was their push for it in the middle of a fucking pandemic? Nowhere to be fucking found. Republican policy was literally better during covid than democratic policy. Who was making it so the cops could literally check to see if you were outside for only "essential" business? That would be the fucking democrats.
Yes they do, I guess you can't read basic scientific data.This just in, covid vaccines do not prevent serious illness or death from covid
Not without getting duly compensated, sure. Though if they want to live in their own filthy cell, that's on them
And if somebody's married and hasn't formally gone through the process to give their power of attorney to somebody else, a very common occurrence given how powerful that is?
4 voted against last time, and that faction has more power now...
...okay, so what's the moral and ethical case for government mandated forced pregnancy? What is the moral and ethical case for requiring 10 year old rape victims to remain pregnant, A THING WHICH IS CURRENTLY GOVERNMENT MANDATED IN MORE THAN A FEW STATES. I'm not being more dramatic than I need to be, this shit *is currently happening*.
Correct. There are *lots* of cases where that does not happen, especially when, say, a mother dies during birth. We've figured this shit out for literally tens of thousands of years.
Correct. I want to hear your non-religious argument for using the government to forve somebody to stay pregnant.
Don't need very many people involved when gerrymandering and court control is a thing
If you are for forcing pregnant people to stay pregnant, a process which permanently alters their bodies, drains their resources, causes immense pain, and always carries the risk of injury and death, why *not* take somebody's extra kidney or bone marrow or chunk of liver if it saves a life? Not even blood, an easily replaceable substance, for the purpose of saving a life?Abortion is banned or severely limited in a number of states. Here's where things stand | CNN Politics
Laws that ban abortion or severely restrict the procedure have gone into effect in about a dozen states after the US Supreme Court ended a constitutional right to abortion on June 24.
Yes. Pregnancy is inherently risky and you are for forcing somebody to remain pregnant at some undefined point in the pregnancy
And you've never proved that. Never even tried to prove that beyond the asinine "but it's immoral to kill a fetus that's currently moving through the birth canal seconds from birth for no reason" like that's a thing that ever happens.
That is not a "fact". Legally speaking, that is not a thing.
I do not have to. My argument is entirely agnostic towards personhood and is just as valid if the person that has to use another's body for survival is a 35 year old computer programmer named Chuck.
The other side's surface level argument is that women are breeding stock and not full human's with bodily autonomy
Then who pays to actually clean the cell when the prisoner refuses to because no forced work? This is why that proposed amendment is not going anywhere. There's nothing conceptually wrong with forcing prisoners to work, the exploitation is though. It's like those that complain about capitalism and think socialism is the solution when that can be exploited just like capitalism.
And yet you still failed to answer my question. Can hospitals decline POA or not? It's like I'm fucking Judge Judy here, Yes or No. And what if someone is engaged and hasn't gotten married yet...? You act like gay couples have some super unique issue that others don't.
Did you read the horrible arguments? I would've voted against that case too if I was a judge and I'm very much for gay marriage, get better attorneys. The job of the judge isn't to make arguments for the side you want to win.
AGAIN, I CAN MAKE THE SAME FUCKING ARGUMENTS IN REVERSE. STOP WITH THE SURFACE LEVEL ARGUMENTS, GO DEEPER!!!
So if you just don't take care of your kid, you won't get in any trouble whatsoever?
All my arguments have been non-religious... And what I said above about surface level arguments.
Most, if not all the states, have some exceptions in place for health of the mother. And again, I'm talking generally about public opinion, very few want abortion banned in cases where it puts added risk on the mother.
Because that's a different discussion. If you want the least amount of suffering as your moral goal, then things get pretty fucked pretty fast.
What isn't inherently risky? How many women just randomly die from pregnancy under a doctor's watch today? Pregnancy used to kill lots of women historically, but so did stairs.
Proven via public opinion.
I don't really care about legally with regards to morals. Hence why I find the decision to overturn Roe correct legally but incorrect morally. And legally speaking, there's no guaranteed right to an abortion either.
I also don't really care about personhood, that's more of a legal term. I know that killing a 8 month baby just out of choice is wrong, don't care if that baby is technically a person or not.
No, that's your spin on the other side's take and the other side can spin your take just the same. Again, get past these pointless arguments please.
...you know what? That one's on me. I should've realized you wouldn't pick up on obvious sarcasm
It's all exploitation, I don't care how convenient the state thinks slave labor is.
That unique issue is called Religious Hospitals Are Cunts Towards Gay People
So it's an plainly obvious right that should nonetheless be denied if the argument for it is bad? That's a shitty way to run things.
Show me how. Steelman this argument. Show me what you want the format to be
Or try making the reasonable surface level arguments for forcing a 10 year old rape victim to saty pregnant, either or
Irrelevant to the question, and hilarious given one of the main points made in favor was "being dead from childbirth". Kinda hard to raise a kid when dead, but usually the kid survives by ways you apparently cannot fathom
You have made zero arguments.
You are wrong about those laws. I even gave you a link. Every state makes an exception for "will absolutely kill the pregnant person", a disturbing number gave zero shits about permanent injury or degrees of "probably will kill the mother. much less children, rape, incest, etc. You realize that laws are not made by public opinion, right?
So it's okay to not force somebody to use their body to save another life if that other life already has tangible value and history, but is acceptable if said life has experienced nothing?
What permanent changes and months worth of extreme discomfort will you allow the government to force upon you?
An entire fifth of the population disagrees. Also, that's *literally* a logical fallacy, not proof
So what's different about an 8 month old fetus and a 7 month old fetus that makes one a person and the other not? Why are we making an 8 month old person, a person who has been pregnant for 8 goddamned months, prove to the government that the abortion the had after 2/3rds of a year was legitimate enough to not go to prison over it? Some gal just makes a heartbreaking decision and you want to, what, jail her until she can prove to the state that it wasn't just for shits and giggles?
To what? This is the only level of argument you engage on
EDIT: Also, lmao:
Last edited:
....but much of the rest of the Constitution is.
And yet the plaintiff was successful in Obergefell. So they obviously made good enough arguments to make the case.
....yet you were earlier arguing that Obergefell was so solid that it couldn't be repealed. And now you're here arguing the case was poor.
I agree! Hence why it's ridiculous for SEGM to claim that because a single study had to update itself, therefore there's "no evidence" -- despite the fact that plenty of other studies exist.
Yep, Democrats didn't make any realistic push for healthcare.
That's not equivalent to active vandalism over decades.
Last edited:
Here's an even better example:
Yeah, that 55-year-old post-menopause woman is secretly trying to get an abortion and MUST BE PUNISHED!
Republicans are sadists.
So by a state's rights issue, Republicans actually meant Christian theocracy. Who would have guessed?!