Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
14,160
5,338
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅

So by a state's rights issue, Republicans actually meant Christian theocracy. Who would have guessed?!
It's almost as if they were lying the whole time or something, and everyone who covered for them knew so and wants this to happen.

No, wait, they actually were lying the whole time, and everyone who covered for them did know so and wants this to happen.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,540
617
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
...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:
You guys have some ridiculous takes about covid that go completely against actual data so I have no clue anymore. Silvanus said the original vaccines are not providing much protection anymore so... yeah...

You just have to have prisoners do work though in some manner, there's no way around that.

So you again have no answer for my question. Funny thing is I work for a very religious hospital system owned by Sisters and all you need to do to see a patient is tell them who you're seeing and that's it.

That's how court works.

I said it probably isn't even possible to morally prove you're right so why I am I the one having to make the argument? I conceded to compromise because 1) it's probably impossible to prove morally and 2) even if you could prove it, in the long run it only makes other things worse by either side completely getting their way. Again forest vs trees.

You made the argument that the parent can just get rid of their kid via adoption, which in theory is true. Just like if you don't like your state's abortion law, you can in theory just move, and you're vehemently against that logic because, you know, there's strings attached to that just like there's strings attached to getting rid of your kid as well.

I've made the same arguments as you but just reversed yours because they are super basic surface level bullshit arguments.

I only engage in the level of argument that you are, I keep asking you to go deeper and you keep going on about forced

Just looking up the Indiana law since I live there and it doesn't say you can only abort when it "will absolutely kill the pregnant person woman".

Never said or argued that.

Again, I'm pro-abortion so I don't get what my stance would be forcing on women, also months of extreme discomfort is hyperbolic.

I proved that a baby being birthed and becoming a "person" isn't a good measuring stick for when it then magically becomes bad to kill it.

I literally just said in my last response that you responded to that I don't care about personhood and you're asking me about what/when makes a fetus a person or not? I don't care, there's not gonna be some agreed upon time "that" happens so that's why there should be a compromise obviously.

You're the one saying the other side is for government forced pregnancies and the other said can say you're for government allowed and subsidized baby killing. See how this isn't going anywhere? Why don't ya'll actually debate vs this dumbass shit where you're both just spinning the other side's stance into something super basic and stupid when it's supposed to be a very nuanced discussion?

....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.
But the 14th amendment is there for gay marriage so why do you care about some other parts of the constitution in this discussion?

The judges put forth decent arguments in their judgements for Obergefell, that's not present in Roe.

Again, READ THE ARTICLE and HEADLINE. They said in THIS STUDY, there is no evidence. The article featured no discussion about anything else but that one study nor did it claim anything else either.

Uhh... BLM protests ring a bell? That's active vandalism right there. And the democrats are at least as responsible for the state of the country today as the republicans are. You act like republicans did like 90% of the damage, it's like 60/40 at best and you can argue for either side being the 60.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,396
3,882
118
Country
United Kingdom
But the 14th amendment is there for gay marriage so why do you care about some other parts of the constitution in this discussion?
OK, if you believe the 14th Amendment unambiguously protects same-sex marriage, then explain to me why for 147 years, from when the 14th Amendment was introduced until 2015, same-sex marriage was not protected by the 14th Amendment.

Explain why, if the 14th Amendment unambiguously protects same-sex marriage, four of the Supreme Court Justices-- all but one of the Republican Justices-- argued even in 2015 that same-sex marriage is not protected.

The judges put forth decent arguments in their judgements for Obergefell, that's not present in Roe.
And three of the Supreme Court Justices who're still serving disagree that those arguments are strong enough.

Again, READ THE ARTICLE and HEADLINE. They said in THIS STUDY, there is no evidence. The article featured no discussion about anything else but that one study nor did it claim anything else either.
Except in the headline, which says, "no evidence". Not "In this study there is no evidence". Just "no evidence".

Uhh... BLM protests ring a bell? That's active vandalism right there. And the democrats are at least as responsible for the state of the country today as the republicans are. You act like republicans did like 90% of the damage, it's like 60/40 at best and you can argue for either side being the 60.
I'm a little more concerned about stripping away workplace protections and rights than I am about some businesses (very well insured) properties getting damaged.

And the Democratic Party did not organise BLM protests, despite what you've been told.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,748
4,849
118
Country
United States
You just have to have prisoners do work though in some manner, there's no way around that.
And you'll get plenty of volunteers at a decent rate of pay without resorting to slavery
So you again have no answer for my question. Funny thing is I work for a very religious hospital system owned by Sisters and all you need to do to see a patient is tell them who you're seeing and that's it.
And I see plenty of signs with "family members only" floating around. Your experiences are not universal.
That's how court works.
Only when 4/9, now 5/9, are religious zealots.
I said it probably isn't even possible to morally prove you're right so why I am I the one having to make the argument? I conceded to compromise because 1) it's probably impossible to prove morally and 2) even if you could prove it, in the long run it only makes other things worse by either side completely getting their way. Again forest vs trees.
Incorrect. If I get *my* way, people who don't want to get abortions even if it kills them aren't forced to. The same is not the case the other way around.
You made the argument that the parent can just get rid of their kid via adoption, which in theory is true.
I made the argument that a biological parent is not required in order for an infant to survive, unlike pregnancy and fetuses.
I've made the same arguments as you but just reversed yours because they are super basic surface level bullshit arguments.
You have literally never made an argument for forced birth that wasn't "at some point it's the moral choice". You don't define a time. You don't define circumstances. You don't define the good part you get for overriding somebody's bodily autonomy, nothing.
I only engage in the level of argument that you are, I keep asking you to go deeper and you keep going on about forced
That's what it literally is. You're theoretically pro-abortion, what's your "deeper argument"?
Just looking up the Indiana law since I live there and it doesn't say you can only abort when it "will absolutely kill the pregnant person woman".
Took effect *today*. Total abortion ban. Makes a ten week exception for rape or incest, a 20 week exception for fatal fetal anomalies (aka, if your fetus developed a condition where it *will die* after 5 months, sucks to be you. Live with your dying/dead fetus for 4 months), and if the pregnant person's *serious* health or life is at risk, and shuts down clinics.
Never said or argued that.

Again, I'm pro-abortion so I don't get what my stance would be forcing on women, also months of extreme discomfort is hyperbolic.
Lived with a pregnant person, no it's not.

You'e only pro-abortion until you're not, without defining when or why it becomes not, and you're advocating a compromise based on "because other people want one". Pardon me for not being enthusiastic about your pro-choice credentials here
I proved that a baby being birthed and becoming a "person" isn't a good measuring stick for when it then magically becomes bad to kill it.
No, you just said a time. That's not "proof". Laws need arbitrary lines, and birth is arbitrary, simple, and basically impossible to get wrong. You got a tall fucking order to "prove" when it's okay for the government to override somebody's bodily autonomy and force them to be living medical equipment.
I literally just said in my last response that you responded to that I don't care about personhood and you're asking me about what/when makes a fetus a person or not? I don't care, there's not gonna be some agreed upon time "that" happens so that's why there should be a compromise obviously.
If personhood doesn't matter, if the fetus isn't a person, then why is it ever "bad" to kill it? We euthanize shit tons of non-human creatures over the course of our lives, sometimes for no other reason than "they got within swatting distance". So why does a non-person have rights over an actual living person *at any time*?
You're the one saying the other side is for government forced pregnancies and the other said can say you're for government allowed and subsidized baby killing. See how this isn't going anywhere? Why don't ya'll actually debate vs this dumbass shit where you're both just spinning the other side's stance into something super basic and stupid when it's supposed to be a very nuanced discussion?
Because it's *not* a very nuanced discussion. The people who think is't baby killing aren't gonna be persuaded otherwise just because most of them happen in 3 months. I know this, because half the fuckers who voted for that Indiana bill wanted to get rid of the exceptions for rape and incest, and some of the votes *against* were because the bill wasn't a *total, "even if the pregnant person dies" ban*
 
Last edited:

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,540
617
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
OK, if you believe the 14th Amendment unambiguously protects same-sex marriage, then explain to me why for 147 years, from when the 14th Amendment was introduced until 2015, same-sex marriage was not protected by the 14th Amendment.

Explain why, if the 14th Amendment unambiguously protects same-sex marriage, four of the Supreme Court Justices-- all but one of the Republican Justices-- argued even in 2015 that same-sex marriage is not protected.



And three of the Supreme Court Justices who're still serving disagree that those arguments are strong enough.



Except in the headline, which says, "no evidence". Not "In this study there is no evidence". Just "no evidence".



I'm a little more concerned about stripping away workplace protections and rights than I am about some businesses (very well insured) properties getting damaged.

And the Democratic Party did not organise BLM protests, despite what you've been told.
You have to argue it in court that not allowing same sex marriage is indeed unequal, no one argued it until they did.
Because the arguments were poor.

Where is there record that those judges do indeed disagree with those arguments?

Here's the headline............
Correction of a Key Study: No Evidence of “Gender-Affirming” Surgeries Improving Mental Health

Read the headline above..........
I guess Spider-Man: No Way Home isn't a Spider-Man movie then because anything before a colon is completely meaningless and should be totally ignored.

The media and democratic party condoned the protests. And where were the democrats at for the railroad workers for 3 years that just were requesting basic quality of life issues before they were about to actually strike?


And you'll get plenty of volunteers at a decent rate of pay without resorting to slavery
And I see plenty of signs with "family members only" floating around. Your experiences are not universal.
Only when 4/9, now 5/9, are religious zealots.
Incorrect. If I get *my* way, people who don't want to get abortions even if it kills them aren't forced to. The same is not the case the other way around.
I made the argument that a biological parent is not required in order for an infant to survive, unlike pregnancy and fetuses.
You have literally never made an argument for forced birth that wasn't "at some point it's the moral choice". You don't define a time. You don't define circumstances. You don't define the good part you get for overriding somebody's bodily autonomy, nothing.
That's what it literally is. You're theoretically pro-abortion, what's your "deeper argument"?
Took effect *today*. Total abortion ban. Makes a ten week exception for rape or incest, a 20 week exception for fatal fetal anomalies (aka, if your fetus developed a condition where it *will die* after 5 months, sucks to be you. Live with your dying/dead fetus for 4 months), and if the pregnant person's *serious* health or life is at risk, and shuts down clinics.
Lived with a pregnant person, no it's not.

You'e only pro-abortion until you're not, without defining when or why it becomes not, and you're advocating a compromise based on "because other people want one". Pardon me for not being enthusiastic about your pro-choice credentials here
No, you just said a time. That's not "proof". Laws need arbitrary lines, and birth is arbitrary, simple, and basically impossible to get wrong. You got a tall fucking order to "prove" when it's okay for the government to override somebody's bodily autonomy and force them to be living medical equipment.
If personhood doesn't matter, if the fetus isn't a person, then why is it ever "bad" to kill it? We euthanize shit tons of non-human creatures over the course of our lives, sometimes for no other reason than "they got within swatting distance". So why does a non-person have rights over an actual living person *at any time*?
Because it's *not* a very nuanced discussion. The people who think is't baby killing aren't gonna be persuaded otherwise just because most of them happen in 3 months. I know this, because half the fuckers who voted for that Indiana bill wanted to get rid of the exceptions for rape and incest, and some of the votes *against* were because the bill wasn't a *total, "even if the pregnant person dies" ban*
Why does the state need to waste money paying people to do basic tasks at the jail the prisoners can do? Can't see the link because it's blocked at work.

I'm not at all saying it's universal, but that's the policy for the hospital system I work at that has about 10 main hospitals and owned by Sisters. The other hospital a friend worked at uses a password system and anyone with the family password can see the patient. Also, so what hospitals are allowed to not recognize POA?

Just ad-hominem attack with no proof and totally veers off the actual argument to something else entirely. Yep, that how you prove points....

You don't get it... 1) because AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN you have no proof you're right morally and 2) what if the next major debate has even worse consequences and the other side outnumbers your side and the other side is not willing to compromise because of last time? Forest vs trees, keep your vision on the whole forest.

I'm fully aware that the biological parent doesn't have to take care of the kid. That doesn't mean there's a pool of people just out there that will take over care of your kid if you don't want to anymore. Just like, AGAIN, you can move to another state if you don't like the abortion law there, but it's not just that simple.

Because I don't know and really nobody does. It's like asking non-legally when someone actually becomes an adult, there's not like an exact moment when that happens. That's why my stance the whole time has been the abortion window just needs to big enough for the woman to have enough time to make that choice. It doesn't really matter if it's 15 weeks or 20 weeks or whatever as long as a choice can be made realistically in that time.

And AGAIN, abortion is literally baby killing. I don't understand how you feel your stance is so superior unless you delve a lot deeper than that. I have no proof my stance is morally superior, that's just what I feel is "right". Also, the issue is so nuanced that a law would hardly be able to factor in all the nuance that goes into such medical decisions so having a nice buffer period to be "laissez-faire" is probably best for all.

The law doesn't only allow abortions in the case the mother would die, which was your claim, you always have to exaggerate in some way and can't just state facts.

My mom slept during labor and got mad at my dad for constantly waking her up (no joke), your point. Your anecdotes are OK but mine aren't it seems... Gave my reasons above.

That was about morals, not laws. And, again, that's why I said above there should be that laissez-faire period.

They're both people.

It is nuanced, it's just that when you constantly have the extreme arguments going back and forth and both sides get to the point that they just feel the other side is evil, nobody feels they are being respected and they get even more entrenched in their stance and more extreme. You know, basic polarization. Notice how I've never made exaggerated surface level arguments or called any side idiots or fuckers literally the whole time?
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
14,160
5,338
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
The party of pro-life
Remember, this is the same party which called Fred Rogers an "evil, evil man" for telling kids that they were all special.


I mean, those brats might grow up thinking that their lives are worth more than their corporate paymasters say they are, and then we're flying the hammer and sickle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,748
4,849
118
Country
United States
Why does the state need to waste money paying people to do basic tasks at the jail the prisoners can do? Can't see the link because it's blocked at work.
'Cause it's slavery, dingus.
I'm not at all saying it's universal, but that's the policy for the hospital system I work at that has about 10 main hospitals and owned by Sisters. The other hospital a friend worked at uses a password system and anyone with the family password can see the patient. Also, so what hospitals are allowed to not recognize POA?
Do you have any earthly idea just how powerful Power of Attorney is? Married couples do not actually have that over each other.
Just ad-hominem attack with no proof and totally veers off the actual argument to something else entirely. Yep, that how you prove points....
Mate, you said the Obergfell decision was rock solid. What other reason for the decision being rock solid still barely making a simple majority would you believe exists?
You don't get it... 1) because AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN you have no proof you're right morally and 2) what if the next major debate has even worse consequences and the other side outnumbers your side and the other side is not willing to compromise because of last time? Forest vs trees, keep your vision on the whole forest.
You are describing reality as it stands. I *already know* the other side doesn't want compromise, THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE
I'm fully aware that the biological parent doesn't have to take care of the kid. That doesn't mean there's a pool of people just out there that will take over care of your kid if you don't want to anymore. Just like, AGAIN, you can move to another state if you don't like the abortion law there, but it's not just that simple.
That is irrelevant to the idea that you should force a pregnant person to stay pregnant. You've forgotten your original argument
Because I don't know and really nobody does. It's like asking non-legally when someone actually becomes an adult, there's not like an exact moment when that happens. That's why my stance the whole time has been the abortion window just needs to big enough for the woman to have enough time to make that choice. It doesn't really matter if it's 15 weeks or 20 weeks or whatever as long as a choice can be made realistically in that time.
Then you should fucking figure it out, because fuck if I'm gonna compromise with an undefined number
And AGAIN, abortion is literally baby killing. I don't understand how you feel your stance is so superior unless you delve a lot deeper than that.
I already fucking have. The *entire crux* of my argument is that we do not force somebody to be medical equipment against their will, even if that means people die. The age of the person in questions is not relevant. If you're gonna tell me a pregnant person should be forced to risk pregnancy to keep somebody else alive, then you need to tell me why we shouldn't be forcing blood donations or liver transplants
I have no proof my stance is morally superior, that's just what I feel is "right". Also, the issue is so nuanced that a law would hardly be able to factor in all the nuance that goes into such medical decisions so having a nice buffer period to be "laissez-faire" is probably best for all.
Or you just leave the fucking law out of it. That way you don't need a buffer
The law doesn't only allow abortions in the case the mother would die, which was your claim, you always have to exaggerate in some way and can't just state facts.
INDIANA IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE PUTTING IN NEW LAWS, YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKWIT.

So, what's your opinion on Indiana's new law, now that we have you here? Okay with making child rape victims carry to term if they don't get it done at a hospital in a couple months? Zero chance at a pregnancy if a condom breaks, no matter how soon you find out, unless the pregnancy is just about to permanently cripple you?
That was about morals, not laws. And, again, that's why I said above there should be that laissez-faire period.
And that period should be...?
They're both people.
What, so is personhood just irrelevant for the pregnant person then?
It is nuanced, it's just that when you constantly have the extreme arguments going back and forth and both sides get to the point that they just feel the other side is evil, nobody feels they are being respected and they get even more entrenched in their stance and more extreme. You know, basic polarization. Notice how I've never made exaggerated surface level arguments or called any side idiots or fuckers literally the whole time?
Who the fuck cares? Nobody gives a shit about how polite you pretend to be when you aren't actually saying anything or taking any actual stance.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,748
4,849
118
Country
United States
Remember, this is the same party which called Fred Rogers an "evil, evil man" for telling kids that they were all special.


I mean, those brats might grow up thinking that their lives are worth more than their corporate paymasters say they are, and then we're flying the hammer and sickle.
Really feeling the love and care they have for life, huh.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,240
1,043
118
Country
United States
I know this, because half the fuckers who voted for that Indiana bill wanted to get rid of the exceptions for rape and incest, and some of the votes *against* were because the bill wasn't a *total, "even if the pregnant person dies" ban*
Just remember that only ten years ago in this godforsaken state, Richard Mourdock shot his own campaign in the head by saying the quiet part out loud (i.e. his statement that pregnancy from rape is "God's plan"). I was planning to go to that debate too for the specific intent of being there to hear him say stupid evangelical shit in person, but I ended up not going in favor of getting a head start at the pub...something of a shock when all my friends who had gone, walked into the pub laughing their asses off.

Folks put on the pretend shocked Pikachu face when shit like this happens, but the stark reality is conservatives, especially evangelicals, have always been this bad. None of this is new. Hell, it was Michael Bailey's ads showing aborted fetuses in this very state, in 1992, that ignited the controversy back then.

PS: fetal personhood is not the catchall "I win" button in abortion debates some of you here think it is. If a fetus is a person, a woman has the right to evict it as an unlawful resident.

Which is, by the way, precisely where pro-abortion protestors catastrophically screw the pooch. Instead of standing in front of a courthouse full of assholes who have lifetime appointments and therefore give zero fucks, they should play dirty and start blasting the courts with unlawful detainers against their fetuses specifically citing fetal personhood. Just like that woman in Texas who fought her traffic ticket for using the carpool lane while pregnant; the juridical equivalent of a DDoS attack.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,294
3,472
118
Australia
Just remember that only ten years ago in this godforsaken state, Richard Mourdock shot his own campaign in the head by saying the quiet part out loud (i.e. his statement that pregnancy from rape is "God's plan"). I was planning to go to that debate too for the specific intent of being there to hear him say stupid evangelical shit in person, but I ended up not going in favor of getting a head start at the pub...something of a shock when all my friends who had gone, walked into the pub laughing their asses off.

Folks put on the pretend shocked Pikachu face when shit like this happens, but the stark reality is conservatives, especially evangelicals, have always been this bad. None of this is new. Hell, it was Michael Bailey's ads showing aborted fetuses in this very state, in 1992, that ignited the controversy back then.

PS: fetal personhood is not the catchall "I win" button in abortion debates some of you here think it is. If a fetus is a person, a woman has the right to evict it as an unlawful resident.

Which is, by the way, precisely where pro-abortion protestors catastrophically screw the pooch. Instead of standing in front of a courthouse full of assholes who have lifetime appointments and therefore give zero fucks, they should play dirty and start blasting the courts with unlawful detainers against their fetuses specifically citing fetal personhood. Just like that woman in Texas who fought her traffic ticket for using the carpool lane while pregnant; the juridical equivalent of a DDoS attack.
I’ll be honest, I think you made the right choice going to the pub instead of the debate.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,396
3,882
118
Country
United Kingdom
You have to argue it in court that not allowing same sex marriage is indeed unequal, no one argued it until they did.
Because the arguments were poor.
...Laws aren't supposed to require someone to argue it in court. The 14th Amendment was not considered to cover same sex marriage when it was written, or for 147 years afterwards. And you're telling me that it's unambiguous.

Where is there record that those judges do indeed disagree with those arguments?
!?! They literally wrote extensive dissenting opinions.

The media and democratic party condoned the protests. And where were the democrats at for the railroad workers for 3 years that just were requesting basic quality of life issues before they were about to actually strike?
I condone the protests too. But condonement isn't organisation or direct responsibility.

The Republican Party tacitly condones racists like the Proud Boys. Can I hold them directly responsible for the shit they do?

Why does the state need to waste money paying people to do basic tasks at the jail the prisoners can do? Can't see the link because it's blocked at work.
"Why does the state need to waste money paying people to do things we can force people to do for free?"

Coerced, unpaid labour is slavery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2013
4,398
299
88
Finland
Coerced, unpaid labour is slavery.
Tbh when the goalposts are at "basic tasks" we get to the point that inmates have a duty not to let the prison become a living hell. While it could be ways off American prisons, that's how it's done with criminally insane people in Finnish mental hospitals for instance.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,396
3,882
118
Country
United Kingdom
Tbh when the goalposts are at "basic tasks" we get to the point that inmates have a duty not to let the prison become a living hell. While it could be ways off American prisons, that's how it's done with criminally insane people in Finnish mental hospitals for instance.
The goalposts weren't at "basic tasks" though-- he's recharacterising manual labour that way to make it seem more reasonable to make people do it unpaid.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,174
1,625
118
Country
Ireland
Just remember that only ten years ago in this godforsaken state, Richard Mourdock shot his own campaign in the head by saying the quiet part out loud (i.e. his statement that pregnancy from rape is "God's plan"). I was planning to go to that debate too for the specific intent of being there to hear him say stupid evangelical shit in person, but I ended up not going in favor of getting a head start at the pub...something of a shock when all my friends who had gone, walked into the pub laughing their asses off.

Folks put on the pretend shocked Pikachu face when shit like this happens, but the stark reality is conservatives, especially evangelicals, have always been this bad. None of this is new. Hell, it was Michael Bailey's ads showing aborted fetuses in this very state, in 1992, that ignited the controversy back then.

PS: fetal personhood is not the catchall "I win" button in abortion debates some of you here think it is. If a fetus is a person, a woman has the right to evict it as an unlawful resident.

Which is, by the way, precisely where pro-abortion protestors catastrophically screw the pooch. Instead of standing in front of a courthouse full of assholes who have lifetime appointments and therefore give zero fucks, they should play dirty and start blasting the courts with unlawful detainers against their fetuses specifically citing fetal personhood. Just like that woman in Texas who fought her traffic ticket for using the carpool lane while pregnant; the juridical equivalent of a DDoS attack.
If a pregnant woman is arrested could she potentially argue that being imprisoned violates the fetus' rights?

Not saying she could successfully argue it, just wondering if they could bung up the courts with it?
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,240
1,043
118
Country
United States
Funny as those arguments are, they kinda fall flat when your opponent is okay with flagrant hypocrisy
This is why courthouse protests cannot and will not work, those in positions to change policy simply don't give a shit. it's why a certain degree of creativity is going to be necessary to force policy change; in this case, malicious compliance with the assertion of fetal personhood to overload the judiciary system with costly procedure.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,174
1,625
118
Country
Ireland
Funny as those arguments are, they kinda fall flat when your opponent is okay with flagrant hypocrisy
It's not about winning. It's about protest. Every pregnant person should sue for any instance where their fetus is not afforded the same rights as any other person.