SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Elegiac]

Again if it's needed to save someone's life that's different than "I just don't want to deal with it and I waited too long. Oh well."

Which is a thing that doesn't happen. The few late term abortions that occur for reasons other than health issues result from a lack of access to the procedure in the early term (i.e. due to Republican gatekeeping by requiring things like letters of medical necessity, limited numbers of providers, et cetera), and even then those skirt the edge of viability anyway.

The idea that viable babies in the third trimester are being terminated because lulz is a conservative fiction.

[Edge-]

The idea that viable babies in the third trimester are being terminated because lulz is a conservative fiction.

They're quite imaginative with their fantasies about them being put in blenders and other weird shit, or being used to generate electricity in Washington D.C. They clearly spend a lot of time thinking about what happens, and not any time researching what actually happens.

[Katchii]

Do not start with "being reasonable". You are known for being unreasonable.

And because, in a society, unless you want riots after riots, you have to make compromise to make it work. Then change the mentality, then compromise, etc... Is that hard to understand ?

Ask yourself WHY you think there should be a compromise. I understand where you're coming from, but it's an absolutely ridiculous take. You're saying because there are shit stain politicians fighting to have control over someone else's body that will make it a challenging political battle that you should take what you can get and go from there....GTFO dude. That's garbage.

WHY should people compromise over ownership of their own body?

[Elegiac]

They're quite imaginative with their fantasies about them being put in blenders and other weird shit, or being used to generate electricity in Washington D.C. They clearly spend a lot of time thinking about what happens, and not any time researching what actually happens.

They do the same shit with public assistance.

When people say they don't want access to public assistance being gatekept by bullshit like means testing, two things will invariably happen:

1) Conservatives will claim that the desire for a lack of gatekeeping is actually intended to facilitate abuse.
2) Conservatives will find a fringe example of someone abusing the system and mascotize them to be representative of everyone using the system.

Utilitarianism and consequentialism are concepts that simply do not exist in the conservative mindset. To them, the institution of government exists solely as an instrument of punishment. Taxes are a 'punishment', regulation is a 'punishment', the existence of government itself is a 'punishment'; the notion that these could ever be social instruments for improving the general welfare never once enters their thought process.

[Moadar]

That decision is between the woman and her doctor, nobody else. Because the "pro-life" folks sure aren't adopting all those babies they want to force women to have.



Regardless of your opinion, and that this is rarely ever the reasoning behind why the very, very few women who pursue abortions that late actually do so (it's a lovely strawman to demonize the women, though!), that is a perfectly valid reason for a woman to decide what happens to her body.

Again, especially while Republicans refuse to fund pre/post-natal care and provide more funding for low-income families, adoption services, school lunches etc. etc. etc.

Just because you are a female does not grant you the right to murder. If a baby can survive at 24 weeks or whatever then you or your doctor should no longer have any say over it's life. The only exception being a life saving procedure.

Just because Republicans don't fund whatever doesn't make it less wrong. They refuse to fund shit for the homeless too so are you up for just letting people purge the homeless?

[Edge-]

Taxes are a 'punishment'

Remains the most batshit crazy mentality in the world. We can have reasonable discussion over whether specific taxes are burdensome or excessive, but the whole mentality of taxes being the government "stealing" or "punishing" people rather than taxes being primarily a way to fund the government and all the things it quietly does without much attention, while acting as a way to deter some sorta of behaviors as a sin tax - which actually predates modern tax systems and was once how the government saw more of its tax revenue - is absolutely batshit crazy.

[Elegiac]

Just because you are a female does not grant you the right to murder.

Cool, no one is arguing that it does. Cut it out with the strawman.

What is being argued is that in no circumstance does someone's right to life form the basis for a violation of someone's bodily autonomy, and that decisions regarding the latter should remain between that someone and their healthcare provider.

[Edge-]

Just because you are a female does not grant you the right to murder.

It's not murder.

If a baby can survive at 24 weeks or whatever then you or your doctor should no longer have any say over it's life. The only exception being a life saving procedure.

Doesn't the parent/guardian get to make medical decisions both for themselves, and their child - or in this case potential child? Again, this is largely a non-issue that Republican and conservatives love to focus on despite the fact that it makes up a hyperminority of abortions and most of that hyperminority are done to protect the health of the mother. It's just the most emotionally manipulative example so y'all love wielding it like it's Thor's fuckin hammer.

Just because Republicans don't fund whatever doesn't make it less wrong.

It does, because the totality of their positions is largely ignoring any harm caused while making no effort to reduce said harm. Quite the contrary.

They refuse to fund shit for the homeless too so are you up for just letting people purge the homeless?

I'm not even going to entertain this gross, disgusting strawman on your part.

Do better.

[bladeXcrasher]

Just because you are a female does not grant you the right to murder. If a baby can survive at 24 weeks or whatever then you or your doctor should no longer have any say over it's life. The only exception being a life saving procedure.

Just because Republicans don't fund whatever doesn't make it less wrong. They refuse to fund shit for the homeless too so are you up for just letting people purge the homeless?

They refuse to fund anything for people in need because they are shitheels. Republicans don't really care about life, so they should stop pretending in the case of abortion.

The vast majority (over 93%) of abortions occur well before 24 weeks, probably should educate yourself.

[Edge-]

What is being argued is that in no circumstance does someone's right to life form the basis for a violation of someone's bodily autonomy

Literally, if I weren't an organ donor and died tomorrow (and had healthy organs which, I probably don't) - they can't touch my body. It doesn't matter how many people my heart, my lungs, my kidneys, my liver, my eyes, or literally any other part of my body could save. My corpse - literally, a dead body with no actual rights - still has the right to bodily autonomy. They can't even take my body and use it on a body farm or as training for med students, both of which could either help solve crimes or actively save lives by ensuring that med students have practical experience before they start working on live patients.

[Gestopft]

If a baby can survive at 24 weeks or whatever then you or your doctor should no longer have any say over it's life.

If the baby can be saved, no doctor is going to intentionally terminate it instead. What the fuck is this assumption?

[shimerra]

Sure, you can go "no compromise". We all reap what we sow.

Roe Vs Wade was the compromise. And how many Jews exactly do you think we should have haggled Hitler down to Mr. Chamberlin?


If I say 2+2=4 and you say 2+2= 6 the path forward isn't to compromise and say it's 5 or both are right. The answer is always 4. In order to compromise the opposing offer has to be reasonable and an acceptable middle ground has to be found. And if you use even one or two of those brain cells you'd know that the current republican offers of total ban on not just abortions but many contraceptives or similar non-sense like 6 weeks to get an abortion, aka an unreasonably stupid amount of time given that periods are approximately monthly and for many women aren't regular, are not things you offer when looking to compromise.

Stop using the word compromise as some magical word that comes up with a solution.

It is what ? 60/40 ? I do not call that "wide" majority. 80/20 would be wide majority.

Then what you call the minimum threshold for a wide majority is stupid and makes no sense. That's an example where 50% more people want something than don't want it. That is definitely a significant or wide majority. You basically are arguing that damn near total consensus is required to have a "wide" majority.

[Elegiac]

The vast majority (over 93%) of abortions occur well before 24 weeks, probably should educate yourself.

And as I mentioned previously, that percentage would be much higher while the total number of abortions would be much lower if Republicans didn't gatekeep access to reproductive health.

That feel when conservatives do far more to incentivize abortions taking place through their political positions than the pro-choice side has ever done. Someone call Alanis Morrissette.

[Endus]

Do not start with "being reasonable". You are known for being unreasonable.

Empty and baseless personal attacks aren't arguments.

And because, in a society, unless you want riots after riots, you have to make compromise to make it work. Then change the mentality, then compromise, etc... Is that hard to understand ?

It's ridiculous, is what it is. It's appeasement. It's how no civil rights movement has ever proceeded.

It's just asking for your ideological opponents to give up and submit. And to that; nah. Frankly, a country under regular riots to protect women's rights is better than a Gilead where women are treated as subhuman.

People made the same arguments during the marches for racial equality in the '60s. Those people were racists who were trying to ensure black people remained second-class citizens forever. Their appeals to "compromise" were not made in good faith. Nor are yours, here, for much the same kinds of reasons. If what it takes to establish a just and equitable system where women's rights are protect is rioting, then let there be riots.

That's better than your "compromise".

[Moadar]

It's not murder.



Doesn't the parent/guardian get to make medical decisions both for themselves, and their child - or in this case potential child? Again, this is largely a non-issue that Republican and conservatives love to focus on despite the fact that it makes up a hyperminority of abortions and most of that hyperminority are done to protect the health of the mother. It's just the most emotionally manipulative example so y'all love wielding it like it's Thor's fuckin hammer.



It does, because the totality of their positions is largely ignoring any harm caused while making no effort to reduce said harm. Quite the contrary.



I'm not even going to entertain this gross, disgusting strawman on your part.

Do better.

Parents do get to make medical decisions but when they make them in a way that is detrimental to the child then they absolutely can be charged with murder.

I entertained your bad logic of "Republicans don't do enough so killing is ok".

[Specialka]

Empty and baseless personal attacks aren't arguments.



It's ridiculous, is what it is. It's appeasement. It's how no civil rights movement has ever proceeded.

It's just asking for your ideological opponents to give up and submit. And to that; nah. Frankly, a country under regular riots to protect women's rights is better than a Gilead where women are treated as subhuman.

People made the same arguments during the marches for racial equality in the '60s. Those people were racists who were trying to ensure black people remained second-class citizens forever. Their appeals to "compromise" were not made in good faith. Nor are yours, here, for much the same kinds of reasons. If what it takes to establish a just and equitable system where women's rights are protect is rioting, then let there be riots.

That's better than your "compromise".

So you are just proving my point. Thank you

[Moadar]

Literally, if I weren't an organ donor and died tomorrow (and had healthy organs which, I probably don't) - they can't touch my body. It doesn't matter how many people my heart, my lungs, my kidneys, my liver, my eyes, or literally any other part of my body could save. My corpse - literally, a dead body with no actual rights - still has the right to bodily autonomy. They can't even take my body and use it on a body farm or as training for med students, both of which could either help solve crimes or actively save lives by ensuring that med students have practical experience before they start working on live patients.

You dont have bodily autonomy as a corpse. You are quasi property. If your next of kin decides to donate your organs they can no matter how you felt about it in life or if you're a donor or not. They can donate you to science. They can even creamate you if you wanted buried.

[Elegiac]

You dont have bodily autonomy as a corpse.

If your next of kin decides

Interesting choice of words. It's almost as if decisions regarding bodily autonomy like, say, medical care can be taken by a legally empowered second party (like a next of kin) in the event that the primary party is unable to affirm or deny consent for reasons like not being of sound mind or, you know, being dead.

The way you just contradicted yourself. Rofl.

[Endus]

Which is a thing that doesn't happen. The few late term abortions that occur for reasons other than health issues result from a lack of access to the procedure in the early term (i.e. due to Republican gatekeeping by requiring things like letters of medical necessity, limited numbers of providers, et cetera), and even then those skirt the edge of viability anyway.

The idea that viable babies in the third trimester are being terminated because lulz is a conservative fiction.

Like, here's a factsheet from a Canadian abortion rights group; https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/wp-content/...-Abortions.pdf

In Canada, abortions after 21 weeks only make up 0.59% of abortions, and they're pretty much all due to grave/fatal impairments to the fetus, health risks for the woman, or both. Such risks don't always show up before such a late point.

Of course, part of this is that we have a functional health care system and anyone who wants an abortion can get one, and without breaking the bank (it's covered), at least for permanent residents. You don't have people delaying hoping they're not pregnant because they can't afford the costs; those studies that show most households can't absorb a $500 sudden expense? Yeah, abortions cost that or more, in the USA.

Plus, the stupid-ass legal fights like the one 12-year-old girl who had to fight to get an abortion after her brother raped her, and got the abortion somewhere past 30 weeks because of the legal fucking around, when she could've otherwise gotten it at 8 or 9 weeks.

Shit like that just basically does not happen in Canada. They're literally invented problems created by the USA's hostility to abortion rights.

- - - Updated - - -

So you are just proving my point. Thank you

What "point"? That you're tone policing and hoping people will accept some inhumane treatment of women?

[Moadar]

Interesting choice of words. It's almost as if decisions regarding bodily autonomy like, say, medical care can be taken by a legally empowered second party (like a next of kin) in the event that the primary party is unable to affirm or deny consent for reasons like not being of sound mind or, you know, being dead.

The way you just contradicted yourself. Rofl.

You missed the part about being quasi property which changes things dramatically. Nice way to make yourself look stupid.