SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

Its not a religious argument that fetus grow into babies which grow into kids, thats science. So you're being dishonest there endus

Why are we considering a possible future that doesn't actually exist when making decisions in the reality of today?

If there's an abortion, there's no baby, no kid. That possibility is entirely imaginary, and I have absolutely no reason to give it any consideration whatsoever.

Do I get to force a woman to have sex with me and bear my kids just because I've stated that I can picture what our hypothetical kids would look like? No? Because that's the same really awful argument.

Also, like Ghost of a Cow noted above; it still doesn't even matter. If you cut a woman open and stick a two-year-old inside her, surgically tied to her blood and nutrient supply for survival, that woman still has the inalienable right to say "get this thing out of me, I don't care if it'll die, get it the fuck out, what the fuck is wrong with you people?!" Personhood, the potential that it may be a human life, it's irrelevant. All you're really saying is you don't think women should be seen as equals, and exist to be used by men.

[RobertoCarlos]

But fetuses aren’t babies, which IS his argument…

Yeah but barring medical complications/death of the mother that fetus will grow into a baby no?

Its just dishonest to call it anything other than killing kids. It is killing kids. Its not like its a great thing to have an abortion especially late stage that shit is gnarly. But it should still be that mothers right to decide not the right of weirdo politicians with agenda's that couldnt give two shits about them once they are out in the world.

[Endus]

Yeah but barring medical complications/death of the mother that fetus will grow into a baby no?

Again, irrelevant. If you stick that baby inside some random woman, she's still got the right to tell you "fuck no, get this out of me".

If you've got a problem with that, it's because you don't treat women as people.

Its just dishonest to call it anything other than killing kids. It is killing kids.

There are no "kids". So no; you're pushing religious extremist nonsense, here.

Not that you'd even have an argument, even if it were true. But it's important to demonstrate why you're wrong, not just that you're wrong.

Oh, and I'll also note that banning abortion will kill women. Ectopic pregnancies won't survive till term, and when they rupture (and without aborting, they will rupture), there's a significant chance the woman dies.

So ironically, you're arguing for killing actual women, in the name of imaginary future hypothetical babies that wouldn't ever exist if you didn't get your way here anyway.

[RobertoCarlos]

Why are we considering a possible future that doesn't actually exist when making decisions in the reality of today?

If there's an abortion, there's no baby, no kid. That possibility is entirely imaginary, and I have absolutely no reason to give it any consideration whatsoever.

Do I get to force a woman to have sex with me and bear my kids just because I've stated that I can picture what our hypothetical kids would look like? No? Because that's the same really awful argument.

Also, like Ghost of a Cow noted above; it still doesn't even matter. If you cut a woman open and stick a two-year-old inside her, surgically tied to her blood and nutrient supply for survival, that woman still has the inalienable right to say "get this thing out of me, I don't care if it'll die, get it the fuck out, what the fuck is wrong with you people?!" Personhood, the potential that it may be a human life, it's irrelevant. All you're really saying is you don't think women should be seen as equals, and exist to be used by men.

Yeah you've really got a winning argument when you have to compare it to sticking a living 2 year old inside of someone. Good one, got me there.

Im atheist btw before you start going on about how im religious.

[Ghost of Cow]

Do I get to force a woman to have sex with me and bear my kids just because I've stated that I can picture what our hypothetical kids would look like? No? Because that's the same really awful argument.

Fuck, dude. Now I have an image in my mind of a dude with a smartphone and some kind of face-blending app going around a bar saying, "Baby, look at these kids, they're so adorable, come on."

[RobertoCarlos]

But it isn't killing kids, calling it that IS dishonest.

Its semantics people use to raise the flag for whichever side they are on.

Im pro abortion.
Im athiest.

Having an abortion is killing a fetus which would have grown into a kid outside of medical/natural complications, its not any more complicated than that.

[Endus]

Yeah you've really got a winning argument when you have to compare it to sticking a living 2 year old inside of someone. Good one, got me there.

Does the argument make you uncomfortable?

Because it's literally the same argument as the pro-life movement. We just aged the "baby" up to be an actual baby.

That it's disturbing as fuck is because your position is disturbing as fuck. It's not my fault that you get a horror show when I trade out a fetus for the "kid" you keep pretending it is.

Im atheist btw before you start going on about how im religious.

I couldn't give less of a dog's teat what you self-identify as.

If you think a fetus is a person from conception, that's a position rooted in faith and spirituality, not science or reason.

If you are an atheist, you should engage in some deep soul-searching about why you'd ever believe something that fantastical.

[RobertoCarlos]

Does the argument make you uncomfortable?

Because it's literally the same argument as the pro-life movement. We just aged the "baby" up to be an actual baby.

That it's disturbing as fuck is because your position is disturbing as fuck. It's not my fault that you get a horror show when I trade out a fetus for the "kid" you keep pretending it is.



I couldn't give less of a dog's teat what you self-identify as.

If you think a fetus is a person from conception, that's a position rooted in faith and spirituality, not science or reason.

If you are an atheist, you should engage in some deep soul-searching about why you'd ever believe something that fantastical.

Dont pat yourself on the back that hard mate you'll put out a disk.

I'm not horrified by anything im just not gonna invest much into a conversation with someone that uses such ridiculous examples and hand waves everything counter as "irrelevant" like pointing out the reality that fetus grow into babies which grow into children. Which late night animated TV show idea will you throw at me next to counter this I ponder.

[RobertoCarlos]

You say you are pro-abortion, yet are making an argument that is used as anti-abortion. The fetus isn't ALIVE, so it isn't being killed. A fetus isn't a kid, either.

Because I try look at situations rationally and logically and not whichever "team" has the prettier colored flag.

And being pro abortion doesnt mean its something you do on a friday afternoon for kicks. Its a shitty situation for everyone. I dont think anyone "wants" to have an abortion. But sometimes its necessary because people can make mistakes and some people should never be parents. That decision should be left to the mother and father.

Meanwhile people are gonna argue over semantics and pretend a fetus wouldnt grow into a kid? Ok? what good does that logic do anyone?

[Poopymonster]

Miller: President Trump… I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday

Oops...

- - - Updated - - -


Well, slow it down, ffs. Plenty of time to catch up, don't have to go this hard!

That's a pretty bold statement there. I waiting for the season finale of "America" in 2024.

- - - Updated - - -

The whole "when does a life begin" debate is all a smokescreen anyway. It just doesn't matter.

If someone wants to argue that "life begins at conception" that's fine. Let them have it. That particular argument just doesn't matter because that isn't the crux of the issue.

According to the government, life begins at birth. That's when you gain a dependent, insurance, all the legal niceties.
Go ahead, try to get your -5 month old baby claimed on your taxes. I'd LOVE to hear that get explained to the IRS.

[RobertoCarlos]

You may try, but in this instance, you are looking at this totally emotionally and irrationally. A man should have 0 say in the abortion, because it isn't his body. You are just flat out wrong and are trying to find fallacious routes to backup your incorrect foundation. It's not hard to admit "oh nevermind I was wrong my bad". Your ego can take the hit I'm sure.

Look if a lady wants to invest top dollar and be a solo parent, and does all the medicial steps needed for a solo pregnancy all power to her.

The other 99% of cases its gonna involve a father.

And ultimately I agree it comes down to the womans decision, its her body and at the end of the day she will be left with most of the responsibility of raising it the father should still be able to have an opinion for moral reasons as well as financial as its his kid....jesus.

[Good Hasbara]

Yokels beware, Emily is coming to REG-U-LATE.

[RobertoCarlos]

He can have an opinion, but it can be discarded. When the baby is born and both parents sign off, they then get equal say (until one proves themselves unfit to care) in the raising of the child, but abortion discussion doesn't involve post-birth, at least in a general accessibility discussion. Your argument is flawed because you WANT to connection children to the foetus itself, when abortion sees the latter as irrelevant.

Yeah I wonder what possible connection there is too fetuses and children.....I wonder....

Maybe because one is impossible without the other? I dunno...

[RobertoCarlos]

But we are discussing abortion, and not children. You are throwing out a red herring.

I honestly think you give more power to anti abortion crowds by denying reality and not engaging in honest discourse. Ever think that's part of the problem and how you get to such extremes like over turning 50 year old cases

[Draco-Onis]

I honestly think you give more power to pro abortion crowds by denying reality and not engaging in honest discourse. Ever think that's part of the problem and how you get to such extremes like over turning 50 year old cases

Why do you think there can be a discourse with extremists?

[RobertoCarlos]

Why do you think there can be a discourse with extremists?

Thats a fair point actually.

Some are too far gone sure but I like to think theres still some middle ground for rational thought.

[Draco-Onis]

Thats a fair point actually.

Some are too far gone sure but I like to think theres still some middle ground for rational thought.

The original status quo was rational until a fetus becomes a baby and you are aware of the pregnancy you can have an abortion exceptions being made for rape, incest or when the life of the mother or medical complications are involved. The people who overturned this are religious zealots incapable of rational thinking who have been gnawing at these rights for decades.

[Shadowferal]

I think a pair of judges need to be impeached for perjury.
That shit shouldn't be ignored.

[Lenonis]

Its just dishonest to call it anything other than killing kids.

So I gather you have no issues with the idea of forcing people to donate organs to clear the backlog? Since you are so against killing kids?

Just think how many kids you've killed because you haven't donated your extra organs. Tsk tsk.

[RobertoCarlos]

The original status quo was rational until a fetus becomes a baby and you are aware of the pregnancy you can have an abortion exceptions being made for rape, incest or when the life of the mother or medical complications are involved. The people who overturned this are religious zealots incapable of rational thinking who have been gnawing at these rights for decades.

Yeah the same people that elect officials who spend all the states budget on border defense and national defense like arming police to the gills who get stumped by a closed door.

Surely those people will start to feel the effect of price of gas on their oversized vehicle and when mountain dew is $2 dollars a can instead of $1 no?

- - - Updated - - -

So I gather you have no issues with the idea of forcing people to donate organs to clear the backlog? Since you are so against killing kids?

Just think how many kids you've killed because you haven't donated your extra organs. Tsk tsk.

I dont really see the connection.

No one forces you to have sex (can we not resort to rape for once because I dont think any sane human is against rape victims being able to abort). Having your organs harvested against your whim seems like a stretch