Colorado signs law allowing abortion at ANY POINT in PREGNANCY

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,139
897
118
Country
USA
Without gender the concept of trans would not exist.

But pretty much everybody on the planet, both cis and trans, recognises the existence of gender, and your bizarre belief that it doesn't exist as anything except stereotype is a massive outlier that cannot be used to approach policy.
The "existence" of gender has only been verbalized for a handful of decades. Pretty much everyone recognizes sex, and many places heavily discriminate based on sex, barely anybody on the planet recognizes gender as something more than sex discrimination.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,326
5,582
118
Country
United Kingdom
The "existence" of gender has only been verbalized for a handful of decades.
This is just 100% categorically historically untrue. I mean, hijra as a distinct gender identity are attested in the thirteenth century. And there are countless other ancient & classical examples of people who were biologically one sex but were considered to be the other in "spirit" or the equivalent.

Pretty much everyone recognizes sex, and many places heavily discriminate based on sex, barely anybody on the planet recognizes gender as something more than sex discrimination.
There is a widespread belief that gender and sex are inseparably linked, which is not the same thing as believing one exists and the other doesn't.

It's that normative belief that leads parents and religious figures to force decisions onto kids who feel differently, to force them to fit their own normative conception.

And what you're advocating is functionally identical, and just as coercive-- just justified with appeals to gender-criticism rather than gender normativity. But functionally the same coercion: force the kid to be in the body they don't feel comfortable in; force them to fit your conception of what their sex should be.
 
Last edited:

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,581
2,818
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Trans is a position that only exists relative to conformity. Without gender norms, the concept of trans does not exist.
The trans position is trying to break gender norms. That's kinda backwards from what you are talking about

But you are right, if there was no gender norms, there wouldnt be any need to be trans. Which, I'm just assuming here, would be a great relief to all transpeople
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,139
897
118
Country
USA
The trans position is trying to break gender norms. That's kinda backwards from what you are talking about

But you are right, if there was no gender norms, there wouldnt be any need to be trans. Which, I'm just assuming here, would be a great relief to all transpeople
Practicing gender norms detached from sex and still calling them gendered is not breaking gender norms.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,581
2,818
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Practicing gender norms detached from sex and still calling them gendered is not breaking gender norms.
I actually completely agree. I don't get tradtional people or transpeople in this case

I would say there is a big difference between choosing which norms you want to follow rather than having norms forced on you. (I dont mind traditions being taught, forcing them onto people is the difference.)

Eg. I cannot understand why you would wear a Hajib etc. If you are doing it because you see value in it, fine. Knock yourself out. If you are being forced into wearing it, I'll help you say fuck off. Substitute in Kippah, Crosses, Xmas trees, Ying Yangs or Hammer and Sickles
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,173
6,601
118
Country
United States
I actually completely agree. I don't get tradtional people or transpeople in this case

I would say there is a big difference between choosing which norms you want to follow rather than having norms forced on you. (I dont mind traditions being taught, forcing them onto people is the difference.)

Eg. I cannot understand why you would wear a Hajib etc. If you are doing it because you see value in it, fine. Knock yourself out. If you are being forced into wearing it, I'll help you say fuck off. Substitute in Kippah, Crosses, Xmas trees, Ying Yangs or Hammer and Sickles
Yeah, bodily autonomy and free choice is key. Want to be the most submissive trad Catholic housewife on the planet? As long as you can make that choice freely and without coercion, fucking go for it. Idiots trying to ban people from being able to keep their own body how they see fit is bullshit
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,289
745
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
...the story about the meowing was literally made up. The TikTok account said so. So, yes?

It's not like laws are different between states or anything

Everywhere that restricts abortion access due to circumstances

I've answered this question a lot and the answer is yes

There's actually a *lot* of writing on this subject
"Other places ban abortions" is not an argument for banning it. Why should it not be allowed?
Your story could be made up too.

What state law says that teacher can't sue and win if the story is true?

Women don't go to a tribunal to be able to get an abortion.

You're in the very very very very small minority then.

And those cases have come up because of other laws, not ones restricting abortions. There's tons of reasons why it shouldn't be allowed. You do realize the majority of people are for abortions because they understand there's situations and nuance to abortions and just banning them all would be bad. Most people are not for abortions just because the baby is not wanted. Many far more progressive countries have abortion restrictions because the majority is not for having 0 restrictions. Abortion is an unique thing because the baby itself has some rights or at least should and what if the father wants the kid but the mother doesn't (and there's no other reason why she wants the abortion). Nobody, but maybe you, thinks it's OK to kill an unborn baby minutes before birth but then not OK a minute after birth. Thus, there's obviously a line to where it should be not allowed (as shown by the rest of the world), where that line is I don't personally know myself but it's definitely there.


I am asking if it exists. In any shape or form, outside of the pregnancy would cause the death of the mother

Think of it this way. If you need an abortion to keep the mother alive, that's like self defense murder in your analogy

What has happened is that these states are taking away the power to let women live if their pregnancy is life threatening because you have decided that they are just killing babies without thought

You been pretending that there is a bunch of murders without applying any context... Which does not suprise me. That's been the whole point

Edit: Because it's you, I'll clarify my first sentence. I don't mean abortions don't exist past 8 mths. I'm asking how many happen that aren't medically related

So, give me numbers on pregnancy that are aborted past 8 mths. Doesn't have to be the US. How many are aborted due to medical reasons?
I don't know, but the law is written to allow it, why should something be allowed if most everyone thinks it's bad? Why would anyone be against abortions when it's done to keep the mother alive, nobody believes that outside of a very small extreme. What state has made a law that requires a woman to go through a pregnancy if a doctor says it's unsafe or even possibly unsafe (like say a 10% chance because of some warning sign)? The reason I made the entire thread was this would be some hot topic here if this was a normally republican law that does nothing. People here are against the Florida parental rights law when they said it's not even taught at those grades anywhere. So, the law does nothing and you're so against it? If no one has ever had an abortion at 8 months, then this law does nothing. Why get on your soapbox over the Florida law but not this Colorado law? That is my point.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,581
2,818
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Your story could be made up too.

What state law says that teacher can't sue and win if the story is true?

Women don't go to a tribunal to be able to get an abortion.

You're in the very very very very small minority then.

And those cases have come up because of other laws, not ones restricting abortions. There's tons of reasons why it shouldn't be allowed. You do realize the majority of people are for abortions because they understand there's situations and nuance to abortions and just banning them all would be bad. Most people are not for abortions just because the baby is not wanted. Many far more progressive countries have abortion restrictions because the majority is not for having 0 restrictions. Abortion is an unique thing because the baby itself has some rights or at least should and what if the father wants the kid but the mother doesn't (and there's no other reason why she wants the abortion). Nobody, but maybe you, thinks it's OK to kill an unborn baby minutes before birth but then not OK a minute after birth. Thus, there's obviously a line to where it should be not allowed (as shown by the rest of the world), where that line is I don't personally know myself but it's definitely there.



I don't know, but the law is written to allow it, why should something be allowed if most everyone thinks it's bad? Why would anyone be against abortions when it's done to keep the mother alive, nobody believes that outside of a very small extreme. What state has made a law that requires a woman to go through a pregnancy if a doctor says it's unsafe or even possibly unsafe (like say a 10% chance because of some warning sign)? The reason I made the entire thread was this would be some hot topic here if this was a normally republican law that does nothing. People here are against the Florida parental rights law when they said it's not even taught at those grades anywhere. So, the law does nothing and you're so against it? If no one has ever had an abortion at 8 months, then this law does nothing. Why get on your soapbox over the Florida law but not this Colorado law? That is my point.
It's what you call a witch hunt

I mean both of these.

If someone actually breaks the law, sure make a law.

They aren't worry about litter boxes because anything is happening. Because it's not. They are doing it to score political points

They are being Bush with 'WMD' evidence, you're being the media perpetuating falsities. He's doing it to push something nefarious through. What are you going to do? Question the narrative or continue perpetuating.

All this has nothing to do with furries or abortion. These are just the talking points to gain control

Edit: In short. Just show us evidence instead of made up stories
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,173
6,601
118
Country
United States
Your story could be made up too.
Prove it
What state law says that teacher can't sue and win if the story is true?
Florida's
Women don't go to a tribunal to be able to get an abortion.
Not in Colorado, no
You're in the very very very very small minority then.
19%, according to Pew
And those cases have come up because of other laws, not ones restricting abortions.
Bullshit. Either you're blatantly lying or you just had a stroke
There's tons of reasons why it shouldn't be allowed.
Spoiler alert, you fail to list one
You do realize the majority of people are for abortions because they understand there's situations and nuance to abortions and just banning them all would be bad.
Yes, that's the bit you seem to miss
Most people are not for abortions just because the baby is not wanted. Many far more progressive countries have abortion restrictions because the majority is not for having 0 restrictions.
Don't care. Logical fallacy to argue for popularity
Abortion is an unique thing because the baby itself has some rights or at least should and what if the father wants the kid but the mother doesn't (and there's no other reason why she wants the abortion).
Don't care, neither of them have the right to use the mother's body as medical equipment, permanently changing it and risking their death in the process
Nobody, but maybe you, thinks it's OK to kill an unborn baby minutes before birth but then not OK a minute after birth. Thus, there's obviously a line to where it should be not allowed (as shown by the rest of the world), where that line is I don't personally know myself but it's definitely there.
Fetus's minutes before birth aren't killed during an abortion procedure unless something has gone profoundly wrong and it's the only way to save a mother's life. You *really* don't know how this shit works, huh.

Besides, it's already legal under Colorado law. The new one just says the Federal Government can fuck off if the feds decide on a national ban. Like how weed legalization works. *You* are the one that wants a new law, *you* get to argue why it should happen.
I don't know, but the law is written to allow it, why should something be allowed if most everyone thinks it's bad? Why would anyone be against abortions when it's done to keep the mother alive, nobody believes that outside of a very small extreme. What state has made a law that requires a woman to go through a pregnancy if a doctor says it's unsafe or even possibly unsafe (like say a 10% chance because of some warning sign)?
You live in a world where GOP politicians have made multiple attempts and arguments to ban abortions in the case of entropic pregnancies. Which are non-viable pregnancies which result in death for the pregnant person
The reason I made the entire thread was this would be some hot topic here if this was a normally republican law that does nothing. People here are against the Florida parental rights law when they said it's not even taught at those grades anywhere. So, the law does nothing and you're so against it? If no one has ever had an abortion at 8 months, then this law does nothing. Why get on your soapbox over the Florida law but not this Colorado law? That is my point.
People *do* have abortions at 8 months. People don't have wholly elective lol random murder fetish abortions at 8 months like you imply. Adding in governmental hurdles and time sinks in critical situations, then sending cops around to harass grieving would-be mothers is evil and is what people who want to ban abortions want. In practice if not in theory.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,289
745
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
It's what you call a witch hunt

I mean both of these.

If someone actually breaks the law, sure make a law.

They aren't worry about litter boxes because anything is happening. Because it's not. They are doing it to score political points

They are being Bush with 'WMD' evidence, you're being the media perpetuating falsities. He's doing it to push something nefarious through. What are you going to do? Question the narrative or continue perpetuating.

All this has nothing to do with furries or abortion. These are just the talking points to gain control

Edit: In short. Just show us evidence instead of made up stories
I'm honestly not sure what some of these responses are specifically to. Most of the developed world does have restrictions on abortions, the vast majority of the American public thinks there should be restrictions on abortions. I don't understand how this is like WMDs or witch hunts in any way. What evidence is there is all these EU countries of atrocities happening to women over standard abortion restrictions?

Prove it

Florida's

Not in Colorado, no

19%, according to Pew

Bullshit. Either you're blatantly lying or you just had a stroke

Spoiler alert, you fail to list one

Yes, that's the bit you seem to miss

Don't care. Logical fallacy to argue for popularity

Don't care, neither of them have the right to use the mother's body as medical equipment, permanently changing it and risking their death in the process

Fetus's minutes before birth aren't killed during an abortion procedure unless something has gone profoundly wrong and it's the only way to save a mother's life. You *really* don't know how this shit works, huh.

Besides, it's already legal under Colorado law. The new one just says the Federal Government can fuck off if the feds decide on a national ban. Like how weed legalization works. *You* are the one that wants a new law, *you* get to argue why it should happen.

You live in a world where GOP politicians have made multiple attempts and arguments to ban abortions in the case of entropic pregnancies. Which are non-viable pregnancies which result in death for the pregnant person

People *do* have abortions at 8 months. People don't have wholly elective lol random murder fetish abortions at 8 months like you imply. Adding in governmental hurdles and time sinks in critical situations, then sending cops around to harass grieving would-be mothers is evil and is what people who want to ban abortions want. In practice if not in theory.
I don't care to prove it. There's usually always an example of something happening somewhere so if disprove yours, I'm sure there's another example; hell, I listed an actual known example myself. You story is just a "he said, she said" at this point until there's more to the story. It's a Schrodinger's cat right now.

The actual text in the law that says this...

Women don't go to tribunal anywhere in the US for abortions.

So 81% disagrees with you. You do realize in a democracy what the majority are for is what should be the policy/law, right?

That's literally what your articles fucking said referencing Laci Peterson laws.

I gave reasons in the post.

Argue for popularity in a DEMOCRACY is a logical fallacy?!

And the mother doesn't have a right to abortion either...

The Colorado law allows a mother to have an abortion last minute if she wants. I don't care if that's happened once, hundred times, or 0 times; it shouldn't be allowed.

I don't get why people keep thinking I'm for republicans and defending them all the time. I hate both parties. You live in a world where democrats have put people in arguably worse positions than the republicans. I'm not sure who is worse honestly, they both suck pretty bad, but people keep voting them in...

When I say abortions, I mean that it's completely a choice vs there's some danger the doctor saw. Literally nobody is wanting to force women to have a baby when the doctor finds something that puts them in something like 90% or even 10% chance of having a major complication from the pregnancy.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,173
6,601
118
Country
United States
I don't care to prove it. There's usually always an example of something happening somewhere so if disprove yours, I'm sure there's another example; hell, I listed an actual known example myself. You story is just a "he said, she said" at this point until there's more to the story. It's a Schrodinger's cat right now.
You're so mad that you posted a factual untruth and got called on it, it's hilarious. Do litter boxes next
The actual text in the law that says this...
is too long to be quoted in a forum post.
Women don't go to tribunal anywhere in the US for abortions.
So, if a law makes an exception for "health of the mother" for abortion, then there's no actual process for a hospital to determine that? Nothing that takes time for a hospital administrator to work through?

Do you know nothing of bureaucracy?
So 81% disagrees with you. You do realize in a democracy what the majority are for is what should be the policy/law, right?
1-in-5 is not a tiny minority. And the majority of the Colorado legislature decided to tell the federal government to pound sand if they made a federal abortion ban, which is also democracy. In your view, interracial marriage would've been illegal until the '90s when it finally nudged over 50% acceptability.
That's literally what your articles fucking said referencing Laci Peterson laws.
And you've catastrophically misread them. Those laws are being weaponized against people who have miscarriages because the prosecutors want to criminalize abortions.
I gave reasons in the post.
Not really, you just said that other people have a right to someone else's body for ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ reasons.
Argue for popularity in a DEMOCRACY is a logical fallacy?!
Yes. Lots of people can like an illogical thing. You're on a gaming forum, this idea shouldn't be hard to grasp.
And the mother doesn't have a right to abortion either...
Glad to see you actually hate the concept of bodily autonomy. What other major surgery should the government be allowed to force on people who are not you?
The Colorado law allows a mother to have an abortion last minute if she wants. I don't care if that's happened once, hundred times, or 0 times; it shouldn't be allowed.
Why?
When I say abortions, I mean that it's completely a choice vs there's some danger the doctor saw. Literally nobody is wanting to force women to have a baby when the doctor finds something that puts them in something like 90% or even 10% chance of having a major complication from the pregnancy.
Every pregnancy involves massive changes to the mother's body. You want to force people to go through that.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,326
5,582
118
Country
United Kingdom
So 81% disagrees with you. You do realize in a democracy what the majority are for is what should be the policy/law, right?
Not on everything, not necessarily. That's why we have the term "tyranny of the majority". There are usually supposed to be safeguards that prevent the majority overriding and abusing the rights and protections of the minority.

Say a policy is suggested that only affects 20% of the population. The affected population supports it uniformly. In the unaffected population, 75% oppose it and 25% support it.

That would mean that in the population as a whole, 60% oppose it and 40% support it. But the people who are actually affected by it support it fully.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,581
2,818
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
So, I found this enlightening. When they say they would kill the mother to save the child, they totally mean it and have been doing it for years. What would become known as a chainsaw started as a way to get children out of mother's

They literally would rip a mum apart just to save babies

 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,289
745
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
You're so mad that you posted a factual untruth and got called on it, it's hilarious. Do litter boxes next
is too long to be quoted in a forum post.
So, if a law makes an exception for "health of the mother" for abortion, then there's no actual process for a hospital to determine that? Nothing that takes time for a hospital administrator to work through?

Do you know nothing of bureaucracy?
1-in-5 is not a tiny minority. And the majority of the Colorado legislature decided to tell the federal government to pound sand if they made a federal abortion ban, which is also democracy. In your view, interracial marriage would've been illegal until the '90s when it finally nudged over 50% acceptability.
And you've catastrophically misread them. Those laws are being weaponized against people who have miscarriages because the prosecutors want to criminalize abortions.
Not really, you just said that other people have a right to someone else's body for ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ reasons.
Yes. Lots of people can like an illogical thing. You're on a gaming forum, this idea shouldn't be hard to grasp.
Glad to see you actually hate the concept of bodily autonomy. What other major surgery should the government be allowed to force on people who are not you?
Why?

Every pregnancy involves massive changes to the mother's body. You want to force people to go through that.
I literally posted a story proving your point but you get mad that I'm not accepting another story proving your point because your story is still unproven?

You can easily post the section that says what you think it says. Laws aren't dissertations.

The doctor would already be looking for things that would put the mother in danger during a pregnancy. Is it not already very standard practice for doctors to ensure the health of the mother and baby during a pregnancy? What is gonna change?

Why would the federal government be making a federal abortion ban?

What abortion laws have caused any of what mentioned in your article to happen?

Abortion is a very nuanced subject because there's another body in a body. That's kinda why like all over the world there's abortion laws and not just the US.

Democracy is a government ruled by the people, if the people want something illogical, they get that thing. I'm not the biggest fan of democracy but don't really have that much of a better idea off the top of my head.

I'm not against bodily autonomy, I'm just stating the law...

Because it's immoral.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,173
6,601
118
Country
United States
I literally posted a story proving your point but you get mad that I'm not accepting another story proving your point because your story is still unproven?
You don't get points for saying a lie to prove that people lie when you believed the lie, my dude.
You can easily post the section that says what you think it says. Laws aren't dissertations.
If laws were simple, we wouldn't have lawyers
The doctor would already be looking for things that would put the mother in danger during a pregnancy. Is it not already very standard practice for doctors to ensure the health of the mother and baby during a pregnancy? What is gonna change?
Abortions being illegal, so the hospital has to run potential exceptions past the legal department. And the financial department, just in case they don't have the money to fight the lawsuit in the first place
Why would the federal government be making a federal abortion ban?
Because that's what the GOP wants. Pence, among others, have said so out loud
What abortion laws have caused any of what mentioned in your article to happen?
Yes, what in the "abortions are murder" laws would lead to somebody having a miscarriage being arrested for murder. It's a goddamned mystery
Abortion is a very nuanced subject because there's another body in a body. That's kinda why like all over the world there's abortion laws and not just the US.
Don't care, they're bad laws
Democracy is a government ruled by the people, if the people want something illogical, they get that thing. I'm not the biggest fan of democracy but don't really have that much of a better idea off the top of my head.

I'm not against bodily autonomy, I'm just stating the law...
And they're bad laws. Defend them or don't.

Why do you want to force people who are not you to permanently change their body through legal force in ways that you will never be asked to do? Do you think the government should be allowed to forcibly take somebody's blood to save a human life?
Because it's immoral.
According to what and why?
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
1,934
334
88
Country
US
So, I found this enlightening. When they say they would kill the mother to save the child, they totally mean it and have been doing it for years. What would become known as a chainsaw started as a way to get children out of mother's

They literally would rip a mum apart just to save babies
That's a bit misleading - the chainsaw you're talking about (essentially a kind of modified wire saw, later versions driven by a handcrank that were sort of proto-bonesaws) was a surgical tool originally used for an alternative to the C-section that had a much higher rate of survival for the mother. The chain saw wasn't created to rip women apart to get at the baby, but as a way to do less damage and risk of slippage than using a knife when cutting through cartilage for this alternative procedure. The procedure was increasingly popular until we started using things like antiseptics and other improvements to medical technique that dramatically reduced the risks of a C-section.

But yeah, back in ye olden days C-sections were basically a death sentence for the mother and only used when the likely alternative was losing both. But they were also generally performed with the knife, not the chainsaw even after the chainsaw was invented.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,289
745
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
You don't get points for saying a lie to prove that people lie when you believed the lie, my dude.
If laws were simple, we wouldn't have lawyers
Abortions being illegal, so the hospital has to run potential exceptions past the legal department. And the financial department, just in case they don't have the money to fight the lawsuit in the first place
Because that's what the GOP wants. Pence, among others, have said so out loud
Yes, what in the "abortions are murder" laws would lead to somebody having a miscarriage being arrested for murder. It's a goddamned mystery
Don't care, they're bad laws
And they're bad laws. Defend them or don't.

Why do you want to force people who are not you to permanently change their body through legal force in ways that you will never be asked to do? Do you think the government should be allowed to forcibly take somebody's blood to save a human life?

According to what and why?
I'm literally agreeing with you that such things happen and you're still fucking arguing...

Sounds like the law doesn't say the thing you claim it says. You only need to copy/paste a sentence or paragraph at most.

What current law or proposed law would cause whatever hypothetical situation you're trying to say is gonna happen?

Lots of things are said out loud and most obviously don't happen. The federal government isn't gonna ban abortion just like gay marriage isn't going to be overturned just like people aren't marrying animals either. Both sides toss you the same BS and you keep falling for it. GOP says we can't have gay marriage cuz it'll lead to people marrying animals, Dems say Roe getting overturned will lead to other rights getting overturned. None of that is gonna happen.

Yet an abortion law hasn't lead to that happening...

Why are they bad laws? Because you don't like them or cuz they are bad laws? Roe was bad law regardless on anyone's view of abortion because it was poorly argued. Also, if any procedure done between a doctor and patient is private and allowed then you couldn't ban any procedures, yet many are banned. Roe's argument just doesn't hold up at all. That is bad law. I'm not against abortion but can see how Roe was bad law.

Simple deontology.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,173
6,601
118
Country
United States
Sounds like the law doesn't say the thing you claim it says. You only need to copy/paste a sentence or paragraph at most.
Do you not know how bureaucracies function? If there's a exception, the hospital has to argue for the exception
What current law or proposed law would cause whatever hypothetical situation you're trying to say is gonna happen?
Want to try that question again? I've got GOP politicians saying they want a nationwide ban, do they have to actually pass a law before you give a shit?
Lots of things are said out loud and most obviously don't happen. The federal government isn't gonna ban abortion just like gay marriage isn't going to be overturned just like people aren't marrying animals either. Both sides toss you the same BS and you keep falling for it. GOP says we can't have gay marriage cuz it'll lead to people marrying animals, Dems say Roe getting overturned will lead to other rights getting overturned. None of that is gonna happen.
You said that about Roe
Yet an abortion law hasn't lead to that happening...
Logical thinking is not your strong suit.
Why are they bad laws? Because you don't like them or cuz they are bad laws?
Because they force people to be medical equipment against their will, forcing them to permanently alter their bodies and risk death. Pretty sure I've covered this extensively
Roe was bad law regardless on anyone's view of abortion because it was poorly argued. Also, if any procedure done between a doctor and patient is private and allowed then you couldn't ban any procedures, yet many are banned.
At some point you're gonna have to engage with the fact that I do not give a single shit what the law currently is, so you should stop using that logical fallacy as an argument. The only time medical procedures should be banned is when they are happening to unwilling participants
Simple deontology.
"Simple Deontology" says that a 10 year old rape victim denied an abortion in Ohio is immoral for breaking the rules and getting an abortion in Indiana.

Fuck "simple deontology". You don't have a moral code, you have a spreadsheet and a desire to not be responsible for your actions because it's "just following the rules"

 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,289
745
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Do you not know how bureaucracies function? If there's a exception, the hospital has to argue for the exception
Want to try that question again? I've got GOP politicians saying they want a nationwide ban, do they have to actually pass a law before you give a shit?
You said that about Roe
Logical thinking is not your strong suit.
Because they force people to be medical equipment against their will, forcing them to permanently alter their bodies and risk death. Pretty sure I've covered this extensively
At some point you're gonna have to engage with the fact that I do not give a single shit what the law currently is, so you should stop using that logical fallacy as an argument. The only time medical procedures should be banned is when they are happening to unwilling participants

"Simple Deontology" says that a 10 year old rape victim denied an abortion in Ohio is immoral for breaking the rules and getting an abortion in Indiana.

Fuck "simple deontology". You don't have a moral code, you have a spreadsheet and a desire to not be responsible for your actions because it's "just following the rules"

Either copy/paste what you say the law says or shut up about it. Give me facts not something something bureaucracies.

So, politicians say lots of things.

I never said that about Roe, it was bad law that was gonna be overturned. Not my fault your cherished party did nothing to codify it, yet you keep voting for them.

God, Europe must just be a hellscape for women then...

Medical procedures are banned for really important reasons. Just like cops can take advantage of criminals getting them to confess without knowing the full extent of it, doctors can do the same thing with experimental procedures. The very thing you argue against in one instance, you switch stances completely in another instance. Stick to your principles...

Simple deontology says abortions ON THE WHOLE are immoral, not that every instance of abortions are immoral. Thus, why like every country has laws for abortion. For instance a simple situation where a lane is closed up ahead, it's immoral to stay in that lane and not get over squeezing in where the lanes converge and basically cutting several cars in line. However, if that person was in an emergency it would be morally OK. See how that works, cutting in line is morally wrong on the whole, but there are instances where it's OK. Same thing with lots of things. Do you not realize that I'm not for abortion bans?
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,173
6,601
118
Country
United States
EDIT:
Either copy/paste what you say the law says or shut up about it. Give me facts not something something bureaucracies.
Hospitals waiting on critical care until they become critical enough to be legally viable, increasing risk

So, politicians say lots of things.

I never said that about Roe, it was bad law that was gonna be overturned. Not my fault your cherished party did nothing to codify it, yet you keep voting for them.
Ain't got a lot of choices, champ
God, Europe must just be a hellscape for women then...
Ain't great a lot of the time. Look at who had to die horrifically to get access to abortions over there
Medical procedures are banned for really important reasons. Just like cops can take advantage of criminals getting them to confess without knowing the full extent of it, doctors can do the same thing with experimental procedures. The very thing you argue against in one instance, you switch stances completely in another instance. Stick to your principles...
I *am*, you weirdo. The fuck are you talking about?
Simple deontology says abortions ON THE WHOLE are immoral, not that every instance of abortions are immoral. Thus, why like every country has laws for abortion. For instance a simple situation where a lane is closed up ahead, it's immoral to stay in that lane and not get over squeezing in where the lanes converge and basically cutting several cars in line. However, if that person was in an emergency it would be morally OK. See how that works, cutting in line is morally wrong on the whole, but there are instances where it's OK. Same thing with lots of things. Do you not realize that I'm not for abortion bans?
That's not "simple deontology" in the slightest. Simple deontology says killing an innocent person is immoral, no ifs, ands, or buts. So *if* you accept the argument that a fetus is an innocent person *and* you actually subscribe to simple deontology, than that 10 year old rape victim committed an immoral act. Every country makes exceptions because they're run by people who live in reality and not by the edicts of Simple Deontology. That's, at best, Threshold Deontology, and that's subjective as shit.

You also haven't argued for why abortions are immoral to begin with. Shit dude, I could steelman half a dozen arguments that don't rely on religion or just vaguely gesturing at a poorly understood philosophy. I'm leaving those as an exercise for you, as I also disagree with them
 
Last edited: