Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion
- Thread starter Piscian
- Start date
I see we're just glossing over the bit where t stopped even pretending to make pro "forced birth for rape victims" arguments and is just whining that people don't like forced birthers.
I mean, aren't we all human? Except the people we force to be medical equipment?
I mean, aren't we all human? Except the people we force to be medical equipment?
I was referring to the intense demonization of people who have a different opinion.
None of you have made any reasonable argument on this topic in a very, very long time. All you have is name-calling. I can handle the anti-choice half of the debate, but the pro-choice side is honestly embarrassing here. You all simply believe there's nothing to argue, so you don't know how to form the argument.
Edit for clarity: there are users on here who can argue just fine. They haven't engaged me on abortion in at least months. I am referring to the dunces above.
Lmao
Can you steelman a pro-choice argument? Do you even grasp what the argument is?
I'm fully aware of that, but the plaintiffs weren't arguing that for some reason when that should be the main thing to argue, objective inequality vs some dignity or enduring bond BS that doesn't matter legally at all.
You didn't mention trans in your reply so I thought you were talking about drug prices as a way to suppress life-saving medicine. Any of those things you just mentioned are "life-saving"? I don't think that applies to kids for showing the greatest improvement. Also, the science isn't settled on that for adults either. So he helped a very limited amount of people and did nothing to fix the actual system in place much like, I don't know, Biden's cancelling of $10k student debt that also doesn't help the people that most need help? What are democrats doing to actually fix healthcare that isn't just merely a slap on the wrist at worst?
Not what I asked. Why would YOU be for mandating something that provides basically no community benefit (and disproportionately kicks minorities out of society) but be against something that would provide tremendous community benefit?
And where is that amendment currently sitting? And where are there actually people protesting prisoners working? I see absolutely no problem with having prisoners work, why should they have to do less work then I have to do at home?
Do religious freedoms exemptions work for power of attorney?
So then we agree that the constitution can do things?
I'm not asking you to prove a moral thing, you're the one claiming you are indeed morally right and since you are, you kinda have to prove your right. When someone claims something, it's on them to prove it, not on others to disprove it. That's why I haven't taken a moral side on who's right because I know it's basically impossible. I'm not writing off anything, I agree with most of your points (I am pro-abortion) which I've said several times. The problem is you can't objectively assign moral weight to these things to show the scales tipping in your favor because it's probably impossible to assign values to such things.
It's still forcing a woman to use her body to support another body. Just about any law disproportionately affects poor people. What does god have anything to do with any of this? You can make all these arguments without any sorta of religious argument, I'm not religious at all. Where would the world be without Nikola Tesla for example?
Yawn, indeed, because you're making the same bottom tier arguments the other side makes.
So there's no death in killing a baby? So a baby 1 second out of the womb is a person and 1 second before leaving the womb is not a person? When does a baby magically become a person? I'm trying to go well past this surface level arguments.
All without a single ounce of self-awareness.
The community benefit is fewer dead and dramatically sick people. But you want to ban soda pop and not, like, sports drink and fruit juices because the carbonation is apparently what's bad, hilarious.
I keep forgetting you think a majority of people have to think a thing before it's true. If you're enslaved at home, you should try contacting the FBI
Apparently yes, given how that shook out during the AIDS crisis.
Who the fuck was saying otherwise, fucking hell?
You are the one who brought up morals, asshole. I'm the one saying shit like "government mandated organ harvesting is bad". That's *ethics* you should get pretending to argue about, not morals. As in "when is it ethical for the government to force ten year old rape victims to remain pregnant"
What the entire fuck are you talking about? You don't have to be a woman to feed an infant, what the fucking hell are you talking about? Nurses aren't fucking enslaved here
Do you have a serious, non-religious argument for the government forcing child rape victims to stay pregnant? Or anybody?
No, you're right. We'll write off anybody that gets pregnant and have the government force them to give birth on the off chance that they birth the next Nikolai Tesla. Hopefully the next Nikola Tesla isn't a woman who gets unexpectedly pregnant, 'cause we'll just throw them under the buss for the *next* Nikola Tesla
Who gives a shit about poor people's bodily autonomy, am I right? Just harvest their organs for their betters while we're at it?
Would be helpful if you could actually define when a fetus becomes a person. You always demand other people prove they aren't. 1 second before birth? 1 hour? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? 3 months? 6 months? What the fuck is it, Pheonix? At what point does your allegedly pro-choice stance become pro-forced birth?
Last edited:
About forcing rape victims to carry their fetus to term. That is factually morally abhorrent.
That's because that's the only kind of arguments the otherside deserves at this point. But that's only if you consider calling people assholes for not respecting womens bodily autonomy bottom tier.
Yeah, nice try, but I'm not arguing that when talking about abortion and neither are you. We're talking about abortion, the vast, vast, vast majority of which occur within the first two months of a pregnancy. Particular people always love to bring this up; 'well, what if it's 1 minute before birth, should a woman be allowed to have an abortion then', as if that ever fucking happens. 'If gays are allowed to get married, then people will start to marry animals!' Classic conservative bullshit.
They're "surface level arguments" because it's really fucking simple; trust the one pregnant what to do with their own body.
Again, it's sad I have to keep pointing this out.
Noone is killing anything (outside of a handful of rare cases usually involving serious and deadly medical complications). Abortion is the process of terminating a pregnancy. If a fetus can survive unassisted outside of the womb, then "aborting" it is just giving birth. "Aborting" a fully developed fetus is called inducing labor. It is exactly the same process, it even uses the same drugs.
And yeah, if it is one of those cases involving serious an deadly medical complications and the choice is between killing a fetus one minute before birth and letting its mother die, then the medical priority should be to save the mother (or at least, if any other decision is made it should be made with her consent and in accordance with her wishes). I think anyone put in that situation who would choose otherwise needs to take a long, hard look at their ethical processing.
However, what you described is literally how the law in most English speaking countries has worked for centuries until a bunch of modern religious zealots decided to try and redefine it. The legal definition of being a person in common law requires you to have been born. Even before abortion was legal, the status of a fetus was distinct from the legal protection given to a person. It is necessary to draw the legal line of personhood somewhere. Birth is as good a place as any, and certainly no less stupid than trying to claim that single celled zygotes are somehow people.
In this case, the actual conservative position, the position supported by tradition and societal convention for hundreds of years, is that personhood begins at birth.
Last edited:
I agree with this assessment. The movement to protect the rights of the unborn is a progressive movement.
That would be because a lot of Constitutional language itself concerns vague moral terms such as "liberty and the pursuit of happiness", as well as "dignity" etc. Legal cases against race issues were settled on these grounds. It's done.
But nevertheless, can you actually provide a link to the Plaintiff's arguments with which you take issue? I've had a quick look but can't find it. I just know it wasn't settled on those issues in the majority opinion.
The data is very much settled on the fact that gender-affirming medications dramatically improve quality of life and lower the suicide risk. And lowering the suicide risk is indeed life-saving, in a literal sense.
They're not going to do much. They're shit.
They're not going to utterly vandalise it at the rate of the Republicans.
If tstorm had any self awareness whatsoever they would have admitted they were wrong after having been proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt long ago instead of steadfastly refusing to and continuing to spout the same incorrect stuff long afterward and still continuing to.
Hence why I recommended everybody ignore them completely. There's no point in talking to them if they're not going to be reasonable.
"Proven" is a stupid standard in most cases, but particularly in a discussion like abortion. Even with completely agreed upon factual premises, there is still an open discussion of subjective concepts and societal priorities. You can't prove a position on abortion.
That being said, I am infrequently wrong on the facts and one of the only users to admit when I am, so this is quite the load you're selling.
It's a reactionary movement, which is infinitely, infinitely worse than merely being conservative.
You can't be progressive and anti-secular. That's quite fundamentally not how it works.
Noone on this planet actually knows at what point a fetus becomes a human. That is not a question any human is actually capable of answering. The difference between a progressive and a reactionary isn't in how they personally would answer that question, but in how they respond to the conditions under which we have to answer it at all.
Last edited:
You are characterizing as reactionary the faction trying to reform society from the abortion status quo you are aware is the conservative position. The people trying to make abortion more legal are the reactionary party on this issue, pushing spitefully in the opposite direction of those who want progress.
Why do you think the definition of progress includes your specific theological views? Why do you think being against abortion requires one to be anti-secular? Are you aware the pro-life movement originated out of medical science, and the framework of Roe v Wade was built around millennia old ideas of when the soul entered the body?
Immediately. I answered the question. A fetus is a living homo sapien from the moment it comes into existance.
Is a new soul that is doomed to eternal torment in hell that must be saved by christ also created with every fetus? Is there a limit to the number of souls?
Nobody knows what is a human, or what life is. These are nebulous things we describe with a dripping pen that we ascribe increasingly complex but never all-encompassing characteristics to, and they are definitions that are bound to be updated as we learn more about the universe and reality and ourselves, so to expect a clear-cut answer here doesn't make any sense.
I know Buddhists try claim that life is sacred and so they never kill insects and so on due to that, but even they kill trillions of smaller cells and bacteria when they wash up and when they survive a cold and so on, and despite the advances in technology revealing to them their constant murders they didn't seem to wanna change their belief system...so I guess one definition for life is when something is perceptible by someone as existing in a state of mortality. If something is too small to perceive then it might as well not be alive as far as humans are concerned, and if you can perceive something's death in some fashion then it is.
Basically, with the way things are, life begins whenever we decide to say that it does, it's not a satisfying definition scientifically but it is the practical one we use intuitively due to our evolutionary path , or so it seems.