SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

And btw, my pro life views are non religious, I'm super agnostic, borderline atheist.

You'll have to find some other explanation for the wildly irrational position you've put yourself into, then, because your views do not line up with biology nor do they line up with legal realities.

It's all about what's right and wrong. And killing a human regardless of their stage of life is wrong.

When you say "a human", do you mean "a human being"?

Because if so, a fetus isn't one.

And if you mean "human in material construction", that applies to all kinds of human cells that die all the time. Including gametes. Conception isn't a super special critical moment that means anything earth-shatteringly new compared to any other stage of development, and setting your position based on conception is fundamentally religious, despite your claims otherwise.

Instead of crying about bodily autonomy how about they practice said autonomy to practice safe sex.

Not what "bodily autonomy" means, and not an argument against abortion.

- - - Updated - - -

See what I mean. The lie that keeps on giving.

It's almost as perfect as faith.

Not lying.

Simple facts.

Which you won't accept, because of some made-up baseless fantasies you've imagined.

If a woman has a miscarriage, is she investigated in that potential homicide?

If a pregnant woman goes to the movies, does she need to buy two tickets?

Can I get life insurance on my zygote two days post-conception?

It's almost like nowhere in society do we actually think a fetus is a human infant, except by bad-faith people arguing to deny women their basic human rights.

[Jtbrig7390]

Cancer is a growth of cells that is part of the body.

A fetus is a growth of cells that is part of the body.....

Believing anything different is ether you being brainwashed by religion or just wanting to control others actions.

[Varx]

You'll have to find some other explanation for the wildly irrational position you've put yourself into, then, because your views do not line up with biology nor do they line up with legal realities.



When you say "a human", do you mean "a human being"?

Because if so, a fetus isn't one.

And if you mean "human in material construction", that applies to all kinds of human cells that die all the time. Including gametes. Conception isn't a super special critical moment that means anything earth-shatteringly new compared to any other stage of development, and setting your position based on conception is fundamentally religious, despite your claims otherwise.



Not what "bodily autonomy" means, and not an argument against abortion.

Conception creates a complete and unique dna code that will one day turn into a full fledge person.

Keep lying to your self but it is what it is, just the earliest stage of life, but life none the less.

Show me a documented event where a woman's fetus turned into an orange after 9 months and I'll sit down.

- - - Updated - - -

A fetus is a growth of cells that is part of the body.....

Believing anything different is ether you being brainwashed by religion or just wanting to control others actions.

Lol what????? The fetus IS the body.

Again, with the liberal living and coping to justify killing babies and avoid the consequences of one's actions

[Endus]

Conception creates a complete and unique dna code

So do the mutations that create cancers. Chimeric people have two (or more) different codes in one person. This literally doesn't mean as much as you think it means; this is what I meant by you inventing magical nonsense.

that will one day turn into a full fledge person.

I'm really not interesting in alternative futures that might exist along different timelines than this one.

If the pregnancy is ended, then that fetus doesn't become a person, and this claim is just objectively false at that point. You're engaging in circular reasoning.

Keep lying to your self but it is what it is, just the earliest stage of life, but life none the less.

So? I had ribs for dinner. That cow was "life" before it was slaughtered so I could eat some yummy ribs. Hell, the baked potato was "life" until I microwaved it to death; if I'd planted it, it would've started to sprout, up to that point. "It's life" is not an argument.

And it's not a person. So there's no reason for the consideration you're trying to give it.

Show me a documented event where a woman's fetus turned into an orange after 9 months and I'll sit down.

This is right up there with "Show me a monkey that gave birth to a human and I'll believe in evolution" for wildly dishonest malarkey.

[Varx]

You'll have to find some other explanation for the wildly irrational position you've put yourself into, then, because your views do not line up with biology nor do they line up with legal realities.



When you say "a human", do you mean "a human being"?

Because if so, a fetus isn't one.

And if you mean "human in material construction", that applies to all kinds of human cells that die all the time. Including gametes. Conception isn't a super special critical moment that means anything earth-shatteringly new compared to any other stage of development, and setting your position based on conception is fundamentally religious, despite your claims otherwise.



Not what "bodily autonomy" means, and not an argument against abortion.

- - - Updated - - -



Not lying.

Simple facts.

Which you won't accept, because of some made-up baseless fantasies you've imagined.

If a woman has a miscarriage, is she investigated in that potential homicide?

If a pregnant woman goes to the movies, does she need to buy two tickets?

Can I get life insurance on my zygote two days post-conception?

It's almost like nowhere in society do we actually think a fetus is a human infant, except by bad-faith people arguing to deny women their basic human rights.

You think you're clever with those questions...

Obviously it's a matter of what is and isn't appropriate regarding development....

Like how u cant sell alcohol to a minor but you can to an adult for obvious reasons.

Well for obviouse a woman doesn't need to buy two tickets, or have the options of getting a life insurance policy.

Lol, it honestly is fascinating how liberals scramble to justify their evil.

[Endus]

Again, with the liberal living and coping to justify killing babies and avoid the consequences of one's actions

Nobody's "killing babies", here.

You can tell by how nobody gets charged with any level of homicide for getting an abortion.

Because it flatly isn't one, and even the religious extremists know that claim's really fuckin' silly.

[postman1782]

Lol what????? The fetus IS the body.

Again, with the liberal living and coping to justify killing babies and avoid the consequences of one's actions

Until the fetus is viable, you know, when the heart, lungs, and brain forms, then you have an argument. Until then it is a fucking parasite.

[Varx]

.



This is right up there with "Show me a monkey that gave birth to a human and I'll believe in evolution" for wildly dishonest malarkey.

No it's not because evolution has overwhelming evidence.

Just like how all of us are evidence of what a fetus is ultimately.

Keep trying.

[postman1782]

No it's not because evolution has overwhelming evidence.

Just like how all of us are evidence of what a fetus is ultimately.

Keep trying.

You are just as fucking delusional and wrong as Matt Walsh is, no wonder you chose him as your avatar.

[Varx]

Until the fetus is viable, you know, when the heart, lungs, and brain forms, then you have an argument. Until then it is a fucking parasite.

Hahaha, the parasite argument...

par·a·site
/ˈperəˌsīt/
noun
1.
an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

If you think that pregnancy is at the adverse expense of a woman then you shouldn't have kids

[Endus]

You think you're clever with those questions...

No, I think they're incredibly reductive and pretty gosh-darned dumb.

And yet, they still completely debunk your position. Which is why I used them.

Obviously it's a matter of what is and isn't appropriate regarding development....

This question isn't in any way related to fetal development, when you get right down to it. It's a straw man.

If you took a live, fully-born three month old infant, that we'd all agree is a human being in every meaningful sense, and took that infant and cut open a random woman and stuffed that infant inside and hooked it up to her uterus for survival, that woman has every right to say "what the fuck? No! Get this out of me!"

And you should be made to remove that infant. Even if the infant will die. Because she doesn't want it inside her.

Because it isn't about personhood, or whether a fetus is a human. It's about whether a woman is a human being who owns her own body, as men own their own. If you disagree with that, that's pure misogyny, and there's no other basis for it.

Well for obviouse a woman doesn't need to buy two tickets, or have the options of getting a life insurance policy.

Thanks for admitting that even you don't believe a fetus is a person, when push comes to shove.

- - - Updated - - -

No it's not because evolution has overwhelming evidence.

Just like how all of us are evidence of what a fetus is ultimately.

Keep trying.

You made literally the same argument.

It's just as dishonest in both cases.

Your argument is exactly as dishonest as the creationist's, for the same reasons, and due to the same level of denial of science.

[Varx]

You are just as fucking delusional and wrong as Matt Walsh is, no wonder you chose him as your avatar.

I don't agree with everything he says but boy is he on point with a lot. Reason why I expanded by book collection recently.

Sorry but I ain't delusional.

Convincing your self that murder is okay because a fetus somehow isn't a human is delusional, and that's a fact.

[Snuke]

Hahaha, the parasite argument...

par·a·site
/ˈperəˌsīt/
noun
1.
an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

If you think that pregnancy is at the adverse expense of a woman then you shouldn't have kids

Oh dear. You think the fetus has its own feeding tube? Where do you think those nutrients come from?

[Varx]

No, I think they're incredibly reductive and pretty gosh-darned dumb.

And yet, they still completely debunk your position. Which is why I used them.



This question isn't in any way related to fetal development, when you get right down to it. It's a straw man.

If you took a live, fully-born three month old infant, that we'd all agree is a human being in every meaningful sense, and took that infant and cut open a random woman and stuffed that infant inside and hooked it up to her uterus for survival, that woman has every right to say "what the fuck? No! Get this out of me!"

And you should be made to remove that infant. Even if the infant will die. Because she doesn't want it inside her.

Because it isn't about personhood, or whether a fetus is a human. It's about whether a woman is a human being who owns her own body, as men own their own. If you disagree with that, that's pure misogyny, and there's no other basis for it.



Thanks for admitting that even you don't believe a fetus is a person, when push comes to shove.

- - - Updated - - -



You made literally the same argument.

It's just as dishonest in both cases.

Your argument is exactly as dishonest as the creationist's, for the same reasons, and due to the same level of denial of science.

She doesn't need to buy those things because a fetus has no need for it ffs.... Lol you really need me to explain that to you.

What she gonna do, buy it popcorn too?


Lol how the fuck do you compare natural conception to that fucked up scenario....

Like do you need liberals to think for you or something?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh dear. You think the fetus has its own feeding tube? Where do you think those nutrients come from?

Again ... The fetus has no ADVERSE effect to the mother. Jesus Christ....

That's the difference between a parasite and a fetus.

[Twdft]

The life of the mother, and rape. Those are the only exceptions.

Quick question: why do you think an abortion in the case of rape is OK but an abortion when a condom breaks not? Both women don't want the baby, why only allow one of them an abortion?

[Endus]

She doesn't need to buy those things because a fetus has no need for it ffs.... Lol you really need me to explain that to you.

It's a person, and it's going to the movies with her. Why doesn't it need a ticket?

"It doesn't need its own seat" also isn't an argument, I'll note; if you want to bring a child in and keep them on your lap, you're still paying for a ticket.

What she gonna do, buy it popcorn too?

If she wants to. Pregnancy cravings are vicious, man.

Lol how the fuck do you compare natural conception to that fucked up scenario....

You were the one who drew that comparison. Don't blame me for pointing out that it's silly as hell.

Like do you need liberals to think for you or something?

You keep going on about "liberals", making it crystal clear this isn't about facts and decency, for you, it's a political ideological tentpole. A matter of faith, not reason.

[Varx]

Quick question: why do you think an abortion in the case of rape is OK but an abortion when a condom breaks not? Both women don't want the baby, why only allow one of them an abortion?

Because that is the true violation of autonomy, not spreading your legs without contraceptive for being ignorant or impulsive.

[postman1782]

Hahaha, the parasite argument...

par·a·site
/ˈperəˌsīt/
noun
1.
an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

If you think that pregnancy is at the adverse expense of a woman then you shouldn't have kids

It does not have to be another species and it does steal nutrients from the mother.

And there are a lot of pregnancies that kill the mother, even with abortion legal.

It is the very definition of a fucking parasite.

[Elegiac]

No they're not children, they're fetuses. Two different stages of development for a HUMAN BEING.

the only ones who are lying are liberals.

Please elaborate why any human being should have a right to the use of another's body to sustain their own lives.

If you're arguing foetuses are people then you need to reckon with the fact people's right to life doesn't ever supersede bodily autonomy, which is why we don't have forced organ or blood donations.

And btw, my pro life views are non religious, I'm super agnostic, borderline atheist.

Are you actually "borderline atheist" or are you that brand of Dawkins/Hitchens-esque atheism that's really just inverted Christianity while still being super misogynistic and Islamophobic?

[Endus]

Again ... The fetus has no ADVERSE effect to the mother. Jesus Christ....

Again, that statement is categorically, definitively false.

Women get told all the time by doctors that they should end a pregnancy because the health risks associated with bearing a child to term are too taxing for her to do so and remain healthy.

That's the difference between a parasite and a fetus.

No, the only technical, scientific difference is that the scientific difference requires that a parasite be a different species than its host. Hence an Angler Fish male which attaches to a female permanently and is supported by her blood stream for nutrients and oxygen doesn't technically qualify as a "parasite" either, because they're both Angler Fish.

Both the male angler and the human fetus otherwise fit the definition to a T.