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

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,560
619
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
'Cause it's slavery, dingus.
Do you have any earthly idea just how powerful Power of Attorney is? Married couples do not actually have that over each other.
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 are describing reality as it stands. I *already know* the other side doesn't want compromise, THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE
That is irrelevant to the idea that you should force a pregnant person to stay pregnant. You've forgotten your original argument
Then you should fucking figure it out, because fuck if I'm gonna compromise with an undefined number
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
Or you just leave the fucking law out of it. That way you don't need a buffer
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?
And that period should be...?
What, so is personhood just irrelevant for the pregnant person then?
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.
No, it's not.

There's usually no reason not to give your spouse POA. And there's more than just a single POA, you can do just a medical POA if you want. Again, can a hospital not recognized a POA? Yes or no.

The judges added in the economic disadvantages into the decision that the plaintiffs didn't. And calling 5 of the justices religious zealots is pretty ridiculous.

Because of polarization.

No, I didn't. The mother is still using her body to support the child after birth. Just because the child is no longer literally attached changes something?

It is a defined number by someone that knows more than me on what a realistic period would be for said choice to be made.

There's a difference between actively killing someone and not saving them.

There's a reason there's abortion laws all over the world because it's a subject people are passionate about. There's just as much nuance that you can argue for abortion as there is against abortion. And the public opinion on abortion morality greatly alters the longer into the pregnancy it is.

I know Indiana isn't the only place. I don't feel like looking up every state's law and you also literally linked to an article about the Indiana law. What state law actually only allows abortion in a case where it would kill the mother and only that, which is what you claimed?

Again with the surface level arguments that anyone can just play the Uno Reverse card on. So personhood is irrelevant to the baby?

It's not "pretend" dude, it's how I treat anyone unless they don't give me the same respect and politeness. What are you gonna get out of an interaction where you exaggerate their stance and call them a name except for a 'mic drop moment" that has no chance of going anywhere after that? I've made my stance very clear many times already, I'm just not gonna say the other side are idiots and fuckers and act like the only reason for the issue is that they are aforementioned idiots and fuckers.

Funny how a liberal sees themself in a completely different light than a conservative doing literally the exact thing. This is exactly what I've been saying the whole time.

...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.



!?! They literally wrote extensive dissenting opinions.



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 things we can force people to do for free?"

Coerced, unpaid labour is slavery.
Laws that are very specific, sure, but many other laws are not or have several situations the crop up that aren't clear cut. We still have freedom of speech being argued in court for various situations and that one's pretty simple. A law that's intended to be vague so that everyone is equal will need to be argued for every new situation to make sure it applies.

Did their dissenting opinion touch on the economic inequality argument that probably wasn't even part of the actual case?

Wow...
Why can't you hold the DNC directly responsible for the shit they do?

So you're for destroying property but against making prisoners clean their rooms, make their food, and all the stuff everyone else has to do for "free"?
 
Last edited:

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,780
4,906
118
Country
United States
No, it's not.
Forced labor is forced labor my dude.
There's usually no reason not to give your spouse POA. And there's more than just a single POA, you can do just a medical POA if you want. Again, can a hospital not recognized a POA? Yes or no.
They are not the same thing
The judges added in the economic disadvantages into the decision that the plaintiffs didn't. And calling 5 of the justices religious zealots is pretty ridiculous.
It's really not. Hell, the one they rammed through in 8 days is literally a cultist
Because of polarization.
They've been fighting for this for longer than I've been alive.
No, I didn't. The mother is still using her body to support the child after birth. Just because the child is no longer literally attached changes something?
Yes. The child is no longer literally attached and can be cared for by anybody. The formerly pregnant person is no longer forced to be in that situation
It is a defined number by someone that knows more than me on what a realistic period would be for said choice to be made.
Nice way to never have a stance on anything except for the bit where *I* have to compromise
There's a difference between actively killing someone and not saving them.
No there isn't. Not if you have the capacity.
If you say you're gonna donate blood but then change your mind, the government should be able to force you?
There's a reason there's abortion laws all over the world because it's a subject people are passionate about. There's just as much nuance that you can argue for abortion as there is against abortion. And the public opinion on abortion morality greatly alters the longer into the pregnancy it is.
So? I'm making my argument, they can make theirs. If I didn't believe I was right, I wouldn't be making my argument. Just because somebody else has an argument doesn't automatically make it valid or worthy of respect.
I know Indiana isn't the only place. I don't feel like looking up every state's law and you also literally linked to an article about the Indiana law. What state law actually only allows abortion in a case where it would kill the mother and only that, which is what you claimed?
Fucking hell man
Again with the surface level arguments that anyone can just play the Uno Reverse card on. So personhood is irrelevant to the baby?
Yes. We don't force corpses to give up organs, we don't force people to donate blood and tissue and use their bodies as living medical equipment for anybody else, regardless of age. Fetuses don't get special treatment. Dead people currently have more medical autonomy than people with functional uteruses. If you're gonna force people to be medical equipment and donate blood and tissue against their will for a fetus permanently altering their bodies in the process, then you're gonna have to explain how that's different than for a 35 year old computer programmer named Bryan
It's not "pretend" dude, it's how I treat anyone unless they don't give me the same respect and politeness. What are you gonna get out of an interaction where you exaggerate their stance and call them a name except for a 'mic drop moment" that has no chance of going anywhere after that? I've made my stance very clear many times already, I'm just not gonna say the other side are idiots and fuckers and act like the only reason for the issue is that they are aforementioned idiots and fuckers.
Fucking and? You don't seem to have a bad word for them *at all*. They completely banned abortion where you fucking live, including kids if they're too scared or unable to escape their abusers in a few weeks, and you're chiding me for calling that fucking evil. Some kid doesn't know what's happening to their body for two months is shit out of luck carrying their rapist's baby, and I'm supposed to pretend "but it's god's will they almost die carrying the child and if they live through it it's a blessing" is a valid stance worthy of respect and compromise in the year of our lord two thousand and twenty two? This shit is evil by Dark Ages standards

Politeness is not a virtue. And your damn right it's because of polarization. The polarization where I'm supposed to pretend kids get to be chosen to be parents by their rapists is a valid moral stance. Where a clump of cells and sack of fluids is more important that the actual living person it's attached to. Where the hopes and dreams and futures of actual living people *have to be* subordinated to some random accident's "potential" future, because actual women aren't as valuable as potential men

But hey, I have to compromise, because I'm actually angry and not some emotionally detached centrist treating this real world event as a thought puzzle
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen and Kwak

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,436
3,927
118
Country
United Kingdom
Laws that are very specific, sure, but many other laws are not or have several situations the crop up that aren't clear cut. We still have freedom of speech being argued in court for various situations and that one's pretty simple. A law that's intended to be vague so that everyone is equal will need to be argued for every new situation to make sure it applies.
So now you're saying it's really vague to leave it open to interpretation. At the same time as arguing that its unambiguous that it protects same sex marriage. OK.

Did their dissenting opinion touch on the economic inequality argument that probably wasn't even part of the actual case?
Nope. The first dissenting opinion, signed by multiple Republican Justices who are still serving, stated:

- because prior SCOTUS decisions haven't changed the definition of marriage, neither should this one;
- Marriage arose for childrearing so therefore it's not discrimination.

Scalia and Thomas also specifically wrote a dissent that the 14th Amendment did not apply because same sex marriage was not in mind when the 14th Amendment was written. Ya know, a similar argument to one of those used to overturn Roe, which you said could not be applied to Obergefell.

Wow...
Why can't you hold the DNC directly responsible for the shit they do?
I can and do. The DNC factually, literally did not organise or arrange the protests. Some members condoned it. That's all. Just like some Republicans condoned the Proud Boys and the overthrow of democracy.

So you're for destroying property but against making prisoners clean their rooms, make their food, and all the stuff everyone else has to do for "free"?
That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about labour that's equivalent to a paid job on the outside. Which nobody does for free unless coerced.

And I'm not "for destroying property"; I just find it hard to care when it's weighed against coerced labour, and the property is all insured by multi-billion dollar companies anyway.
 
Last edited:

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,560
619
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Forced labor is forced labor my dude.
They are not the same thing
It's really not. Hell, the one they rammed through in 8 days is literally a cultist
They've been fighting for this for longer than I've been alive.
Yes. The child is no longer literally attached and can be cared for by anybody. The formerly pregnant person is no longer forced to be in that situation
Nice way to never have a stance on anything except for the bit where *I* have to compromise
No there isn't. Not if you have the capacity.
If you say you're gonna donate blood but then change your mind, the government should be able to force you?
So? I'm making my argument, they can make theirs. If I didn't believe I was right, I wouldn't be making my argument. Just because somebody else has an argument doesn't automatically make it valid or worthy of respect.
Fucking hell man
Yes. We don't force corpses to give up organs, we don't force people to donate blood and tissue and use their bodies as living medical equipment for anybody else, regardless of age. Fetuses don't get special treatment. Dead people currently have more medical autonomy than people with functional uteruses. If you're gonna force people to be medical equipment and donate blood and tissue against their will for a fetus permanently altering their bodies in the process, then you're gonna have to explain how that's different than for a 35 year old computer programmer named Bryan
Fucking and? You don't seem to have a bad word for them *at all*. They completely banned abortion where you fucking live, including kids if they're too scared or unable to escape their abusers in a few weeks, and you're chiding me for calling that fucking evil. Some kid doesn't know what's happening to their body for two months is shit out of luck carrying their rapist's baby, and I'm supposed to pretend "but it's god's will they almost die carrying the child and if they live through it it's a blessing" is a valid stance worthy of respect and compromise in the year of our lord two thousand and twenty two? This shit is evil by Dark Ages standards

Politeness is not a virtue. And your damn right it's because of polarization. The polarization where I'm supposed to pretend kids get to be chosen to be parents by their rapists is a valid moral stance. Where a clump of cells and sack of fluids is more important that the actual living person it's attached to. Where the hopes and dreams and futures of actual living people *have to be* subordinated to some random accident's "potential" future, because actual women aren't as valuable as potential men

But hey, I have to compromise, because I'm actually angry and not some emotionally detached centrist treating this real world event as a thought puzzle
I guess we're all slaves then...

What's not the same thing? You can get a medical POA if just want a person to have POA power for medical situations vs financial situations. AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, what hospital is allowed to not recognize that?

The cult of liking beer? Very doubtful since you exaggerate so much.

And what happened over the more time than you've been alive? Polarization.

Yes, but they get in trouble if they don't take care of the child... And just giving children over to others is not some readily available thing like DoorDash. If you're gonna make that argument, then states making abortion laws is pointless because people can just move or travel to another state. If there's no strings attached in getting rid of a kid in your argument, then there's no strings attached in moving or traveling to another state.

Because I know if I was to look into the situation fully and come up with a time that I would find perfect for me, I know the chances of enough other people agreeing is so low that I'd have to compromise as well. But yeah, you're the only one compromising and not me at all...

It is your blood so why wouldn't you be able to get it back unless you already signed something saying it's not "yours" anymore?

God, it's so easy to reverse this every fucking time... Then your argument can be seen as invalid and unworthy of respect. It's the same logic as why people shouldn't steal because if you are allowed to steal from others, then others can steal from you and you wouldn't want that. It's in your best interest to make stealing a crime.

Paywalled and why can't you just link to a single state's law that bans abortion in ONLY a case where the mother would die? That's all I'm asking for.

We also don't allow anyone to forcibly kill another person either. Again, Uno Reverse card.

I don't have a bad word of anyone's stance if their stance is genuine and willing to have an actual debate and be moved on their stance (at least somewhat). There's probably tons of people on both sides not in that aforementioned group so, yes, they are being disingenuous in this debate and I'll have bad words for them. But that doesn't mean the stance they are pushing for is inherently invalid because there's real reasons to have that stance.

So now you're saying it's really vague to leave it open to interpretation. At the same time as arguing that its unambiguous that it protects same sex marriage. OK.



Nope. The first dissenting opinion, signed by multiple Republican Justices who are still serving, stated:

- because prior SCOTUS decisions haven't changed the definition of marriage, neither should this one;
- Marriage arose for childrearing so therefore it's not discrimination.

Scalia and Thomas also specifically wrote a dissent that the 14th Amendment did not apply because same sex marriage was not in mind when the 14th Amendment was written. Ya know, a similar argument to one of those used to overturn Roe, which you said could not be applied to Obergefell.



I can and do. The DNC factually, literally did not organise or arrange the protests. Some members condoned it. That's all. Just like some Republicans condoned the Proud Boys and the overthrow of democracy.



That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about labour that's equivalent to a paid job on the outside. Which nobody does for free unless coerced.

And I'm not "for destroying property"; I just find it hard to care when it's weighed against coerced labour, and the property is all insured by multi-billion dollar companies anyway.
It's not so much open to interpretation, it's open to be future-proofed. What equally issue has come up that the 14th amendment hasn't been able to legitimize?

And what does that have anything to do with the economic disadvantages of not being able to marry?

So the DNC is not responsible for making policy that causes an environment for said protests?

I'm against the exploitation of prisoner labor but you can't make slavery for prisoners illegal either. It's like how you can't make say torrenting programs illegal because they are mainly used for illegal activity when they have legit uses. If the insurance companies have to pay out more insurance than they expect, everyone's rates go up. It's just not magically paid for.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,436
3,927
118
Country
United Kingdom
It's not so much open to interpretation, it's open to be future-proofed. What equally issue has come up that the 14th amendment hasn't been able to legitimize?
Same sex marriage, for 147 years?

Like... you're arguing the 14th Amendment is the ironclad tool for protecting these rights, when for the vast majority of its existence it didn't fulfil that role and wasn't intended to.

And what does that have anything to do with the economic disadvantages of not being able to marry?
It doesn't. That's my point.

So the DNC is not responsible for making policy that causes an environment for said protests?
Oh, so now we're into indirect responsibility... by drawing subjective connections.

Both parties are responsible for creating the godforsaken political environment in which people came to see those protests as necessary. But more so the Republicans.

I'm against the exploitation of prisoner labor but you can't make slavery for prisoners illegal either. It's like how you can't make say torrenting programs illegal because they are mainly used for illegal activity when they have legit uses. If the insurance companies have to pay out more insurance than they expect, everyone's rates go up. It's just not magically paid for.
It's extremely easy to make forced labour illegal. Numerous countries do it without issue.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,780
4,906
118
Country
United States
I guess we're all slaves then...
I mean, there's literally nothing stopping me from quitting my job, and nobody can force me to take a different job, and I am required to be paid to work.
The cult of liking beer? Very doubtful since you exaggerate so much.
Do you not even know who's on the Supreme Court?
And what happened over the more time than you've been alive? Polarization.
The cultists of which you are now demanding I compromise with, yes.
Yes, but they get in trouble if they don't take care of the child... And just giving children over to others is not some readily available thing like DoorDash. If you're gonna make that argument, then states making abortion laws is pointless because people can just move or travel to another state. If there's no strings attached in getting rid of a kid in your argument, then there's no strings attached in moving or traveling to another state.
Irrelevant to the sheer biological truth that after birth, a person is not forced to provide their own body to keep somebody alive.
Because I know if I was to look into the situation fully and come up with a time that I would find perfect for me, I know the chances of enough other people agreeing is so low that I'd have to compromise as well. But yeah, you're the only one compromising and not me at all...
Correct. You are offering zero compromise while I am meeting you halfway by pretending that an embryo or fetus is an actual person that can die in any meaningful way.
It is your blood so why wouldn't you be able to get it back unless you already signed something saying it's not "yours" anymore?
Good question. Now why's that different for a pregnant person?
God, it's so easy to reverse this every fucking time... Then your argument can be seen as invalid and unworthy of respect. It's the same logic as why people shouldn't steal because if you are allowed to steal from others, then others can steal from you and you wouldn't want that. It's in your best interest to make stealing a crime.
Which is why you should make a better argument than "you should compromise just because people disagree with you"
Paywalled and why can't you just link to a single state's law that bans abortion in ONLY a case where the mother would die? That's all I'm asking for.
Because I was 7 names down before I said "fuck it" and posted a list. First one alphabetically, Alabama
We also don't allow anyone to forcibly kill another person either. Again, Uno Reverse card.
Yes we do. Lots of times. NOW EXPLAIN WHY A CORPSE HAS MORE RIGHTS TO THEIR OWN BODY THAN A PREGNANT PERSON
I don't have a bad word of anyone's stance if their stance is genuine and willing to have an actual debate and be moved on their stance (at least somewhat). There's probably tons of people on both sides not in that aforementioned group so, yes, they are being disingenuous in this debate and I'll have bad words for them. But that doesn't mean the stance they are pushing for is inherently invalid because there's real reasons to have that stance.
Lmao.
I'm against the exploitation of prisoner labor but you can't make slavery for prisoners illegal either.
You can actually. Lots of places have done it. Lots of places in the states are trying to.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
1,811
1,240
118
Country
4
-
A New York woman says she was denied highly effective medication for a chronic, painful condition that’s caused her to contemplate suicide because her neurologist told her she could become pregnant, and the medication might cause birth defects—even though she never plans on having children. In a series of TikTok videos, Tara Rule (@pogsyy) included audio, in which the doctor explains to her that despite the facts that she uses protection, her partner would be willing to get a vasectomy, and she would have to get an abortion anyway (her hypothetical pregnancies would be high-risk), the risks to her hypothetical fetus trump her debilitating pain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
14,197
5,403
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
-
A New York woman says she was denied highly effective medication for a chronic, painful condition that’s caused her to contemplate suicide because her neurologist told her she could become pregnant, and the medication might cause birth defects—even though she never plans on having children. In a series of TikTok videos, Tara Rule (@pogsyy) included audio, in which the doctor explains to her that despite the facts that she uses protection, her partner would be willing to get a vasectomy, and she would have to get an abortion anyway (her hypothetical pregnancies would be high-risk), the risks to her hypothetical fetus trump her debilitating pain.
Doesn't she realize that the only worth her life has is as a baby factory? Obviously God is punishing her for denying this with that horrible pain! How dare she attempt to avoid His judgement!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
2,404
876
118
-
A New York woman says she was denied highly effective medication for a chronic, painful condition that’s caused her to contemplate suicide because her neurologist told her she could become pregnant, and the medication might cause birth defects—even though she never plans on having children. In a series of TikTok videos, Tara Rule (@pogsyy) included audio, in which the doctor explains to her that despite the facts that she uses protection, her partner would be willing to get a vasectomy, and she would have to get an abortion anyway (her hypothetical pregnancies would be high-risk), the risks to her hypothetical fetus trump her debilitating pain.
Yeah, but she might get raped and it would really bum out the rapist if she aborted the resulting fetus. So really, what choice do they have?
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,780
4,906
118
Country
United States
Arizona's running with a total ban* that's older than the actual state is now. Don't really know how that's supposed to work


*only exception is life of the mother
 
  • Like
Reactions: thebobmaster

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,188
176
68
Country
USA
It's almost like overturning the basis of a fundamental human right results in human rights, safety, and quality of life all being destroyed. Who knew?
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,780
4,906
118
Country
United States
Fucking hell, sore winner



I think the big this is that some conservatives have this weird idea that there's Good People and Bad People, and that if you are a Good Person you do Good Things be default. Instead of the normal definition that if you do gold things you are a good person
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
16,185
1,740
118
I think the big this is that some conservatives have this weird idea that there's Good People and Bad People, and that if you are a Good Person you do Good Things be default. Instead of the normal definition that if you do gold things you are a good person
Not an uncommon sentiment, sadly. There's also "I've committed (technically) crimes, but I'm not a criminal", which in small doses applies to lots of people, but it can go pretty far in some.