SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Zeth Hawkins]

At least you've admitted pretty much straight-up that your position has nothing to do with the fetus, and is entirely about some weirdo desire to see women punished for daring to have extramarital sex, as if they're free to make their own choices or something.

Who brought up marriage? We are talking about rape, sweetie. Weird attempt at a derail there.

[Endus]

Who brought up marriage? We are talking about rape, sweetie. Weird attempt at a derail there.

You're baiting. You've claimed the be pro-choice, but anti-abortion. Everything you're saying is a lie.

[Zeth Hawkins]

As for destroying a person... are we banning male masturbation and female periods? I'd hate for you to not be consistent.

You know what DNA and fertilization are. No need to be obtuse.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not pro-choice. You're pro-life, and you're just lying about really basic shit.

Every woman should have the choice on whether they become pregnant or not. Again, I am pro choice. And pro life. And pro bodily autonomy. And anti abortion.

No bait, no troll. Every woman should have the choice whether they become pregnant or not. I will repeat it as many times as you like.

The choice of destroying another person is something I am not "pro".

[Machismo]

You know what DNA and fertilization are. No need to be obtuse.

Not at all. If you cared about "destroying a person" like you said, then why provide exceptions and allow for that innocent "person" to be destroyed. You are on record being completely inconsistent in that regard.

[unfilteredJW]

Always keep in mind changing the definitions of words is standard tactic for the depos.

[Machismo]

You know what DNA and fertilization are. No need to be obtuse.

- - - Updated - - -



Every woman should have the choice on whether they become pregnant or not. Again, I am pro choice. And pro life. And pro bodily autonomy. And anti abortion.

Nope, you are simply lying. Your attempted argument was about protecting a person from being destroyed, but supported that very same person being destroyed.

You are not pro-choice, if you support forcefully taking away that choice. That's no different than someone who wants to ban all firearms, who says they are pro-gun.

Reality and simple logic disagree with you.

[Endus]

Every woman should have the choice on whether they become pregnant or not. Again, I am pro choice. And pro life. And pro bodily autonomy. And anti abortion.

No bait, no troll. Every woman should have the choice whether they become pregnant or not. I will repeat it as many times as you like.

The choice of destroying another person is something I am not "pro".

In bold is where you demonstrate that you're lying.

You're pro-life. That's your stated position, because you oppose abortion. The rest of it is completely irrelevant to that determination, especially since you seem to be using "bodily autonomy" completely incorrectly. Specifically, that there are only two people involved in any abortion; the pregnant patient and her health care provider, and only the bodily autonomy of the patient comes up in that framing.

And that's not a difference of opinion. That's a fact. I don't care what your religious views are, your religious views are not relevant to anyone but yourself and your faith leader.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Not at all. If you cared about "destroying a person" like you said, then why provide exceptions and allow for that innocent "person" to be destroyed. You are on record being completely inco sisters in that regard.

Is inco sisters an auto correct, or some reference I am not getting?

You know sperm and eggs do not have their own full set of unique DNA. I know you know biology. Direct lies are not helping you.

[Machismo]

Is inco sisters an auto correct, or some reference I am not getting?

You know sperm and eggs do not have their own full set of unique DNA. I know you know biology. Direct lies are not helping you.

You know where you said rape victims should be allowed to get abortions?

That means you are perfectly fine with destroying "people."

So, does that make you an accomplice to murder, or just a hypocrite?

I don't need to lie, I have quotes of your bad-faith posting to do the work for me.

[Endus]

You know sperm and eggs do not have their own full set of unique DNA. I know you know biology. Direct lies are not helping you.

The problem is we do know biology, and you do not.

Gametes do have full sets of DNA, for gametes.

A unique set of DNA is not what defines a person. See twins, who are two people but share the same DNA. See chimeric people, who contain two (or more) unique DNA sequences, but are nevertheless only one person. See tumors, whose mutations make their DNA "unique", but are not "persons". See everything non-human, frankly, which also have unique DNA. This DNA argument is nonsense made up by religious extremists who don't understand basic human biology.

[Zeth Hawkins]

In bold is where you demonstrate that you're lying.

You're pro-life. That's your stated position, because you oppose abortion. The rest of it is completely irrelevant to that determination, especially since you seem to be using "bodily autonomy" completely incorrectly. Specifically, that there are only two people involved in any abortion; the pregnant patient and her health care provider, and only the bodily autonomy of the patient comes up in that framing.

And that's not a difference of opinion. That's a fact. I don't care what your religious views are, your religious views are not relevant to anyone but yourself and your faith leader.

There are of course three people involved in an abortion. You know who the third is. (Or four, five, six, etc.)

One stance allows for a life, the other stance disallows life. I am on the former side.

I am pro bodily autonomy. Third time so far, "Every woman should have the choice whether they become pregnant or not."

Not religious, by the way. Atheist. It is a forbidden topic, but I will risk the infraction to mention that. No god(s) exist. The Greek ones a nice to read about though.

[Machismo]

There are of course three people involved in an abortion. You know who the third is. (Or four, five, six, etc.)

One stance allows for a life, the other stance disallows life. I am on the former side.

I am pro bodily autonomy. Third time so far, "Every woman should have the choice whether they become pregnant or not."

Not religious, by the way. Atheist. It is a forbidden topic, but I will risk the infraction to mention that. No god(s) exist. The Greek ones a nice to read about though.

So, why do you want to kill a "person" when the mother is raped?

Either you believe yourself to be an accomplice to that murder, or you are standing against your own argument.

[Endus]

There are of course three people involved in an abortion. You know who the third is. (Or four, five, six, etc.)

If you mean the fetus, then you're just definitively wrong. It isn't a person. Like I said; I could not possibly care less what your religious views might be about a fetus, those views have no relevance to anyone else and you should keep that shit to yourself.

Not religious, by the way. Atheist. It is a forbidden topic, but I will risk the infraction to mention that. No god(s) exist. The Greek ones a nice to read about though.

That's spectacularly silly, because the only arguments for fetal personhood are religious in nature. There isn't a single scientific/biological/rational basis for such a position, if you remove religious views from the subject.

This wouldn't be the first time you've lied, though. You also claimed to be pro-choice, and that was an obvious lie. Because you also stated you're anti-abortion.

[Zeth Hawkins]

You know where you said rape victims should be allowed to get abortions?

That means you are perfectly fine with destroying "people."

So, does that make you an accomplice to murder, or just a hypocrite?

I don't need to lie, I have quotes of your bad-faith posting to do the work for me.

As I also said, I am pro bodily autonomy. No woman should be forced into being pregnant, hence the rape exception. I would prefer the child is born and have a chance to live a full life.

[Machismo]

As I also said, I am pro bodily autonomy. No woman should be forced into being pregnant, hence the rape exception. I would prefer the child is born and have a chance to live a full life.

Then you are admitting to being a giant hypocrite who doesn't believe it is actually killing a person, or you are saying you are a willing accomplice to that murder. Which is it?

You keep dodging your own lies.

[Zeth Hawkins]

That's spectacularly silly, because the only arguments for fetal personhood are religious in nature. There isn't a single scientific/biological/rational basis for such a position, if you remove religious views from the subject.

I have already discussed this. Like Machismo, I know you know what DNA is.

[Endus]

I have already discussed this. Like Machismo, I know you know what DNA is.

I literally do not care what incorrect nonsense you've claimed. You're wrong about this, you're wrong about what it means to be "pro-choice", and you're not posting in good faith. My goal here isn't to convince you otherwise, my goal is to point out to everyone how openly dishonest you are about this topic.

Edit: I'll also pre-emptively note that this is a trivial conversation anyway, because fetal personhood is 1000% irrelevant to the question of abortion rights. Even if we chose to grant that a fetus was a full human being from birth, that would provide absolutely no grounds whatsoever to deny a pregnant person an abortion, no matter the circumstances of the conception. She could be happily married and the sex was consensual, and if she doesn't want the pregnancy, you abort. Even if the husband disagrees. This isn't a complicated question.

If that's difficult for you to conceive, imagine instead we took a fully-born three-month-old infant, which we all agree is fully a human person and possessing the full rights thereof, and cut a random woman open and put that infant inside her and hooked it up for survival and stitched her back up. Does she not have the right to scream "what the fuck" at you and demand you take that thing out of her? Why doesn't she get a say in this? Denying her that control over her own self is exactly what I meant about dehumanizing women and not treating them as people.

That's your argument. Now that it's in her, she has to carry it. She doesn't get a say. Because she exists solely as a brood mare. That's the pro-life position.

[Machismo]

As I also said, I am pro bodily autonomy. No woman should be forced into being pregnant, hence the rape exception. I would prefer the child is born and have a chance to live a full life.

I would prefer women not get abortions, but since it's not my body, it's none of my fucking business. It's their choice.

- - - Updated - - -

I have already discussed this. Like Machismo, I know you know what DNA is.

DNA doesn't make someone a person.

A banana has DNA.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Then you are admitting to being a giant hypocrite who doesn't believe it is actually killing a person, or you are saying you are a willing accomplice to that murder. Which is it?

You keep dodging your own lies.

I have already discussed this as well.

Perhaps I should be against abortions for rape victims, but that does not feel right. My personal dream would be: If a woman is raped, becomes pregnant, and decides to have an abortion, the rapist should be charged with manslaughter (or homicide depending).

Being pro choice and pro life, one has to choose between the two at some point. I can see the argument for forced birth, but do not agree with it. One person's right has to be violated, and my opinion right now is in favor of upholding the mother's.

[postman1782]

I am pro bodily autonomy. Hence why I am anti abortion.

You can't be anti-abortion and pro-bodily autonomy at the same time. Because until the parasite is viable and can survive on its own, it doesn't have its own rights, and the constitution specifically states that only persons born have rights.