SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Hansworst]

Well again. Stepping outside of ones self and looking at it LOGICALLY. I would imagine some people see a difference between a criminal that earned the death sentence vs something that cant speak for itself yet and hasnt had the chance to turn against jesus

You would be right if people were killing newly born. But you're talking about a lump of cells which has the potential to grow into a living being. Good luck banning menstruation

[Lenonis]

Well again. Stepping outside of ones self and looking at it LOGICALLY. I would imagine some people see a difference between a criminal that earned the death sentence vs something that cant speak for itself yet and hasnt had the chance to turn against jesus

I'm pretty sure this was in reference to the every life is sacred crowd.

[Elegiac]

That there is why you're having such a hard time of it.

Someone is disagreeing with a notion of your "Team" instead of just looking at it logically.

I've already provided ethical and medical justifications for why a guaranteed right to abortion is a positive good, and why the emotionally driven claim that it's 'killing kids' is baseless.

Seems like I'm not the one lacking in rationality, rofl.

[RobertoCarlos]

You would be right if people were killing newly born. But you're talking about a lump of cells which has the potential to grow into a living being. Good luck banning menstruation

I just think its being intellectually dishonest to compare abortion to having a wank, or having a period.

Likewise people trying to claim miscarriages are then a criminal act.

Like wtf is that? Just because something is nasty and complicated does not mean its not a necessary evil. And just seems like copium for people who have aborted.

Its a complicated issue that can have massive emotional stress on the mother for life

- - - Updated - - -

I've already provided ethical and medical justifications for why a guaranteed right to abortion is a positive good, and why the emotionally driven claim that it's 'killing kids' is baseless.

Seems like I'm not the one lacking in rationality, rofl.

Well when you can get back to me on how you get kids without a fetus im all ears.

[Hansworst]

The debate would certainly be a lot easier if you could just ask pro-choicers what they believe, and then ask pro-choicers what pro-lifers believe, and let those arguments air in a kangaroo court. If you really want some fireworks, ask yourself if pro-life advocates are allowed to do the same to all the pro-choice positions.

Pro-life people are appreciative of all the free help, particularly the obvious scorn directed at anyone who would mourn a miscarriage or hold a funeral. Just a clump of cells, same rights as a tumor, shout your abortion you're free? It keeps pushing more Americans to the middle: heavier restrictions favored towards the middle and end of the pregnancy, and allowances at the start from bad choices/failed contraception/not ready.

Yeah the pro-lifers really come over as the rational ones.

There is a scenario where both sides can be happy: legalize abortion. People who desperately looking for an abortion can have one. And pro-lifers aren't forced to have an abortion.

[Elegiac]

As long as people keep bringing them up as just another reason to legislate abortion on demand, I'll keep responding to them. It's as easy as that.

You're probably also aware that a primary argument for the pro-life position is that there's another body in that woman, and it's not very easy to discard its bodily autonomy if you really intend to make bodily autonomy your lynchpin.

An argument which is entirely negated by aforementioned pointing out that "bodily autonomy" does not entitle you to use of someone else's body to sustain your life even if some form of 'consent' was given at one point.

To which the responses are invariably just emotional appeals in the vein of "think of the children" or slut shaming.

- - - Updated - - -

Well when you can get back to me on how you get kids without a fetus im all ears.

What a silly non sequitur.

Kids developing from fetuses does not make termination of a pregnancy "killing kids". You do know induced birth, i.e. termination of a pregnancy, is a thing, right?

[Hansworst]

I just think its being intellectually dishonest to compare abortion to having a wank, or having a period.

Likewise people trying to claim miscarriages are then a criminal act.

Like wtf is that? Just because something is nasty and complicated does not mean its not a necessary evil. And just seems like copium for people who have aborted.

Its a complicated issue that can have massive emotional stress on the mother for life

- - - Updated - - -



Well when you can get back to me on how you get kids without a fetus im all ears.

It isn't dishonest, it's the same. Spermcells can grow into babies as well as a fetus.
Both aren't babies yet. Simple scientific fact.

[PC2]

Dude we're ruining the planet from over population. We dont need to be encouraging people breeding we need to do the opposite.

The world is underpopulated and not overpopulated. We need more manpower and brainpower in order to make progress a bit faster.

Still though, this isn't a reason to force any women to give birth. There are other better ways to incentive more births, such that a pregnant woman's free will is not violated.

[RobertoCarlos]

An argument which is entirely negated by aforementioned pointing out that "bodily autonomy" does not entitle you to use of someone else's body to sustain your life even if some form of 'consent' was given at one point.

To which the responses are invariably just emotional appeals in the vein of "think of the children" or slut shaming.

- - - Updated - - -



What a silly non sequitur.

Kids developing from fetuses does not make termination of a pregnancy "killing kids". You do know induced birth, i.e. termination of a pregnancy, is a thing, right?

"Some form of consent" Oh like how you mean if the kid was born the father would be financially responsible till its 18. No one has a problem with that. But he cant have any say in if it gets to be born or not. This is why choosing who you have unprotected sex with is important but I guess that is "slut shaming" silly me.

- - - Updated - - -

The world is underpopulated and not overpopulated. We need more manpower and brainpower in order to make progress a bit faster.

Still though, this isn't a reason to force any women to give birth. There are other better ways to incentive more births, such that a pregnant woman's free will is not violated.

You are joking

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't dishonest, it's the same. Spermcells can grow into babies as well as a fetus.
Both aren't babies yet. Simple scientific fact.

Spermcell count is something like billions and billions of sperm and IF ONE makes the egg is somewhat of a miracle. To get to fetus stage you're more than on the way.

On paper you're right, but thats why context is important.

[Hansworst]

The world is underpopulated and not overpopulated. We need more manpower and brainpower in order to make progress a bit faster.

Still though, this isn't a reason to force any women to give birth. There are other better ways to incentive more births, such that a pregnant woman's free will is not violated.

PC2 with more nonsense. Must be a day ending on Y. This world is heavily overpopulated, as shown by several scientific reports and things like climate change, famine etcetera. It will even get worse considering the exponential growth of population.

[unfilteredJW]

"Some form of consent" Oh like how you mean if the kid was born the father would be financially responsible till its 18. No one has a problem with that. But he cant have any say in if it gets to be born or not. This is why choosing who you have unprotected sex with is important but I guess that is "slut shaming" silly me.

- - - Updated - - -



You are joking

- - - Updated - - -



Spermcell count is something like billions and billions of sperm and IF ONE makes the egg is somewhat of a miracle.

On paper you're right, but thats why context is important.

There’s the mask off misogyny.

[Hansworst]

Spermcell count is something like billions and billions of sperm and IF ONE makes the egg is somewhat of a miracle. To get to fetus stage you're more than on the way.

On paper you're right, but thats why context is important.

Okay, I'd might exaggerate with spermcells but let's just say sex without impregnation. Most important is both don't directly create babies. There is another process coming after those stages before it turns into something capable of living outside the mothers womb.

[RobertoCarlos]

There’s the mask off misogyny.

How can I hate woman, me mum's one.

[Elegiac]

"Some form of consent" Oh like how you mean

No, I don't, because MRA-esque ranting about child support isn't relevant to a discussion of bodily autonomy.

Nice mask off moment tho.

[RobertoCarlos]

No, I don't, because MRA-esque ranting about child support isn't relevant to a discussion of bodily autonomy.

Nice mask off moment tho.

Oh dear yeah the mask is off by pointing out the father should at least have an opinion seeing as he has legal responsibilities for said child outside of moral ones.

[Endus]

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.

That "reality" is irrelevant. Literally irrelevant. You could put an actual baby inside a woman and I'd still say she has the right to demand it be removed.

Whether the fetus can or will become a child at some point in the future if allowed to gestate to term is completely irrelevant. Because even if that's true, the woman still should have the right to abort. It's her body. You keep dismissing that and dehumanizing women in general in the process.

No one forces you to have sex

And there's the misogynistic and pseudo-religious moral authoritarianism.

This is not an argument. It's just seeking to punish women for not holding to medieval levels of misogyny and male control over their choices.

You're probably also aware that a primary argument for the pro-life position is that there's another body in that woman, and it's not very easy to discard its bodily autonomy if you really intend to make bodily autonomy your lynchpin.

This is nonsense.

1> A fetus isn't a human being. Definitively so by law, and by science, that would be marked by "viability" at best, and at that point, if a pregnancy could be safely aborted by inducing birth, that's the process that would be used anyway, rendering the argument null.

2> Thus, no "bodily autonomy" for the fetus, in this. At best, you've made an argument for inducing birth to remove the fetus after it reaches viability, not any duty on the part of the pregnant person. Plus, removing that fetus does not in any respect violate its bodily autonomy, hypothetical as it may be.

It's a Russian nesting doll of wrongness.

You're probably also familiar with fetal viability arguments, since a healthy second body outside the first healthy body sort of defeats autonomy uber alles arguments.

Not even a little bit, no. Fetal viability doesn't help the pro-life side one bit.

I've heard enough bodily autonomy arguments to know some claim the head may be crowning and it's still a lump of cells at the mercy of the whims of the owner of its temporary home. I also don't want anyone to get the idea that there's nothing to be done to arrive at a livable compromise--I think a lot of wrestling legislatively can arrive at some 12/15/20-week system for legality simply because a ton of Americans recognize the two-body problem and are capable of weighing their rights.

How about "women can control the use of their bodies like everyone else can under all circumstances, and we'll stop enforcing ancient moral punishments on women for daring to have non-procreative sex".

Anything short of that requires that we accept a certain level of abusive, harmful misogyny. It is not in any respect a "compromise". It's like being told to stop beating your wife and trying to negotiate a "compromise" of getting to beat her on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and every second Saturday.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh dear yeah the mask is off by pointing out the father should at least have an opinion seeing as he has legal responsibilities for said child outside of moral ones.

We're not talking about a child. We're talking about abortion.

The father should have zero say unless the father is the one who's pregnant. He does not own the woman he impregnated, and anyone pushing that view should be shamed out of society.

[Hansworst]

Oh dear yeah the mask is off by pointing out the father should at least have an opinion seeing as he has legal responsibilities for said child outside of moral ones.

That's the price we pay as men. Women do all the hard work.

[Elegiac]

Oh dear yeah the mask is off by pointing out the father should at least have an opinion seeing as he has legal responsibilities for said child outside of moral ones.

Yeah, it is mask off, because you seem to think "the father should be making decisions for the mother's bodily autonomy as if she were an invalid" is an acceptable argument. Rofl.

The argument is one of bodily autonomy. Child support is not a function of that.

[RobertoCarlos]

That's the price we pay as men. Women do all the hard work.

Wont disagree they do the heavy lifting in child bearing and raising but the way this thread just dismisses the fathers role kinda reflects where we are in a society and why I think crime among other issues among young men keeps skyrocketing because the father figure is getting more and more isolated and mocked

[Endus]

Yeah, it is mask off, because you seem to think "the father should be making decisions for the mother's bodily autonomy as if she were an invalid" is an acceptable argument. Rofl.

The argument is one of bodily autonomy. Child support is not a function of that.

"But he got her pregnant so he at least half-owns her and gets to tell her what she can and can't do with her own body, right?"

Jesus wept, these "arguments".