SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[KOUNTERPARTS]

No I'm keeping it clean. Nice that you remember me though.

It's easy to remember anybody who cries the loudest in a crowded room.

[gondrin]

Does a human fetus turn into a carrot after 9 months? Lol....

I didn't say that. I said TERMS matter. Go into court with even the slightest of wrong terminology and you could go from having a winnable case to getting it thrown out. So, once again, you have to prove they are babies first. Don't deflect, actually prove they are babies.

Babies are already born humans that are usually just born, or otherwise known as an infant. I have put my definition out there. How about you?

[Endus]

Pro choice people think that lack of brain activity or w/e means a fetus isn't human.

The same way we use that same metric to determine the end of life, yes. If a patient is brain dead, they're dead, even if the body's systems are being kept "alive" by machine intervention, and those machines can be turned off without it being considered "killing"; the person that used to be that body is already dead, and the condition of the corpse doesn't change that.

Any argument that a zygote or fetus is a "baby" from conception is fundamentally and irrevocably religious in nature. It has absolutely no secular basis or justification whatsoever. Your personal identification on this point is completely irrelevant, since it either means you're lying to us about it or you don't even understand how completely irrational and baseless your principles on this point actually are.

But a fetus is just a stage of dev of any human. Is a baby less human and undeserving of rights because they can't speak or walk like an adult can? Of course not.

Not the standard.

Also, irrelevant, because even if we were talking about a live human infant, already born and without question a human being, if the only way it could survive was to be put inside a woman's uterus, that woman would still have categorical right to refuse, even if that infant would die without her allowing it. This isn't debated, anywhere, under any circumstances, except the circumstance of aborting a pregnancy. Because the core issues here have absolutely nothing to do with the fetus or whether it's a human being; anti-abortion positions are irrevocably an attack on women's basic human rights. Nothing more. Fetal personhood is a smokescreen used so you don't have to come right out and say how much you think women are just walking incubators who exist to serve men/society, rather than full people in their own right.

It's all about laziness and not wanting to own up the the consequences of your actions.

Getting an abortion is owning up to those consequences, and taking action to amend them, which is the opposite of laziness. You're just expressing hatred.

[Varx]

Oo here's the other insane lefty argument. That a fetus is a parasite.

Parasites, are from a different species of the host and hold no symbiotic value.

Pregnancy is clear different from that.

So yeah it's still a living being with it's own genetic code.

[Belize]

Haha!!! Without her direct consent??? Unless you're raped. Literally the act of sex is "CONSENT" to become pregnant.

Wow..

Sex != consent.

Why do you think condoms/birth control exists?

[Varx]

It's exactly the same argument. In both situations it's suspending the bodily autonomy of Individual A and giving it to Individual B, disallowing Individual A to have a say in what can and can't be done with their own body in regards to the life support of another.

I'm hardly bending over backwards, kid. Bending over backwards is hand wringing about things being 'natural' as if that even matters to us anymore with how much our lives revolve around man-made conveniences to function, let alone thrive, as a species.

No it's not the same thing. You clearly ignored what I said.

[gondrin]

Haha!!! Without her direct consent??? Unless you're raped. Literally the act of sex is "CONSENT" to become pregnant.

Wow..

Also, since you are for the forced birthing of babies outside of the context of rape and the life of the mother, are you for forced organ donations? Even if the person is alive? I mean, you can survive on one kidney, part of your intestines, part of your liver, artificial heart, artificial lungs and the like. Even part of the brain can be removed and the person will still live. So, is that OK in your view? Should we force you to donate any of those things so someone else can live?

[Varx]

It's easy to remember anybody who cries the loudest in a crowded room.

Well it's going to seem like I'm crying when I go against an echo chamber of a thread

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say that. I said TERMS matter. Go into court with even the slightest of wrong terminology and you could go from having a winnable case to getting it thrown out. So, once again, you have to prove they are babies first. Don't deflect, actually prove they are babies.

Babies are already born humans that are usually just born, or otherwise known as an infant. I have put my definition out there. How about you?

Terms just define the stage of development. Regardless a human is human whether their a fetus, baby, or adult...

[Endus]

Pregnancy on the other hand is a part of life that's been bastardized by the left as a sort of inconvenience or disease.

Hardly.

We just respect that women are actually people, and thus have the same rights as anyone. Rather than restricting their rights in pursuit of religious subjugation. Which is what pro-life advocates all advocate, every single one of you. Pro-life is about subjugating women into being subhuman brood mares in society, a lower class of human with reduced rights.

Since in any other case where the right to life of one individual runs up against the right to bodily autonomy/self-ownership of another individual, the right to bodily autonomy always trumps right to life of another. Except, for reasons pro-lifers never properly explain, pregnancy. Why is that a special case that requires denying women their basic human rights?

- - - Updated - - -

Sex != consent.

Why do you think condoms/birth control exists?

Not only is the "sex=consent" argument obviously morally reprehensible as fuck, there's a funny thing about consent.

It can be revoked.

If you're arguing you can't revoke consent, then you're not talking about consent at all, you're talking about ways to allow the violation of consent.

Saying "hey, you consented to sex, so you can't get an abortion" is literally the same argument a rapist uses when they say "hey, you consented to coming back to my place for a drink, so you don't get to leave until you fuck me". Literally the exact same absolutely awful reasoning.

[Jester Joe]

I'm pretty sure biology would tell you that terminating a pregnancy is fatal to the fetus.... Which would be killing.

That's just you stretching the meaning to include killing.

I mean, my computer has had fatal errors before, is it dead? Even though it was never alive in the first place?

And that's the argument that lefties use. Maybe also heart beat idk. The point is that somehow being at a very early point in human dev somehow means you aren't human and don't deserve rights.

"Maybe heart beat idk" just shows that you're not actually even paying attention to what people are trying to discuss with you.

Willful ignorance doesn't mean you're right.

And no the organ donor argument is completely BS. Organ donation is not a normal act by nature. It's all by the donor's good will.

It's about taking away bodily rights.

Pregnancy on the other hand is a part of life that's been bastardized by the left as a sort of inconvenience or disease.

I mean, have you never met a pregnant women? Like...yes, being pregnant is 100% an inconvenience when it inhibits your actions, causes sickness, pain, etc.

Need I go on? There's absolutely no way to think being pregnant itself isn't inconvenient. It's just people want the end result, a baby.

[Xyonai]

I'm pretty sure biology would tell you that terminating a pregnancy is fatal to the fetus.... Which would be killing.

And that's the argument that lefties use. Maybe also heart beat idk. The point is that somehow being at a very early point in human dev somehow means you aren't human and don't deserve rights.

And no the organ donor argument is completely BS. Organ donation is not a normal act by nature. It's all by the donor's good will.

Pregnancy on the other hand is a part of life that's been bastardized by the left as a sort of inconvenience or disease.

And carrying a pregnancy to term is also by the good will of the Parent, offering to let the fetus use their body as a host / life support until they're matured enough to be viable without the mother. Just as an organ or blood donor is offering a part of their body to another person to help them continue to live. Isn't it crazy how easy it is to compare the two situations?

And you can cut the shit, no one's arguing that pregnancy is some vile thing that should be avoided, but we're not so naive or dull headed as to think Pregnancy is 100% safe or without complications. Abortion is hardly something most folk consider as a first resort, and many elective abortions stem from when complications arise that would severely compromise the health of the fetus or if the mother is absolutely sure she's incapable of taking care of another human being.

[Varx]

The same way we use that same metric to determine the end of life, yes. If a patient is brain dead, they're dead, even if the body's systems are being kept "alive" by machine intervention, and those machines can be turned off without it being considered "killing"; the person that used to be that body is already dead, and the condition of the corpse doesn't change that.

Any argument that a zygote or fetus is a "baby" from conception is fundamentally and irrevocably religious in nature. It has absolutely no secular basis or justification whatsoever. Your personal identification on this point is completely irrelevant, since it either means you're lying to us about it or you don't even understand how completely irrational and baseless your principles on this point actually are.


Not the standard.

Also, irrelevant, because even if we were talking about a live human infant, already born and without question a human being, if the only way it could survive was to be put inside a woman's uterus, that woman would still have categorical right to refuse, even if that infant would die without her allowing it. This isn't debated, anywhere, under any circumstances, except the circumstance of aborting a pregnancy. Because the core issues here have absolutely nothing to do with the fetus or whether it's a human being; anti-abortion positions are irrevocably an attack on women's basic human rights. Nothing more. Fetal personhood is a smokescreen used so you don't have to come right out and say how much you think women are just walking incubators who exist to serve men/society, rather than full people in their own right.



Getting an abortion is owning up to those consequences, and taking action to amend them, which is the opposite of laziness. You're just expressing hatred.

So you think a fetus turns into a carrot too huh?

Hmmm, killing a baby and ridding me of their upbringing or birth? Yeah no that is just laziness via a distorted way of "owning to your consequence".

Burning down your home for insurance would be a way to own up to ur financial troubles right. Though illigal. You get the point

[Xyonai]

No it's not the same thing. You clearly ignored what I said.

I didn't ignore what you said. Your argument's just so flimsy that there's barely anything to push at before it breaks.

[Varx]

Sex != consent.

Why do you think condoms/birth control exists?

Nine of that is 100%. A gamble is a gamble.

[The Stormbringer]

Oo here's the other insane lefty argument. That a fetus is a parasite.

Parasites, are from a different species of the host and hold no symbiotic value.

Pregnancy is clear different from that.

So yeah it's still a living being with it's own genetic code.

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.

Literal textbook definition.

[Endus]

And you can cut the shit, no one's arguing that pregnancy is some vile thing that should be avoided, but we're not so naive or dull headed as to think Pregnancy is 100% safe or without complications.

It's such a willfully dishonest claim. Pregnancy is wonderful, when you want to be pregnant. It's like consensually kissing someone you love; it's wonderful.

Now, consider how much you enjoy the same kissing when it's the homeless tweaker who lives in the alley and snuck up behind you at the truck stop. But kissing's wonderful! Why do you hate kissing?!

So fucking horrible as an argument.

[Varx]

Hardly.

We just respect that women are actually people, and thus have the same rights as anyone. Rather than restricting their rights in pursuit of religious subjugation. Which is what pro-life advocates all advocate, every single one of you. Pro-life is about subjugating women into being subhuman brood mares in society, a lower class of human with reduced rights.

Since in any other case where the right to life of one individual runs up against the right to bodily autonomy/self-ownership of another individual, the right to bodily autonomy always trumps right to life of another. Except, for reasons pro-lifers never properly explain, pregnancy. Why is that a special case that requires denying women their basic human rights?

- - - Updated - - -



Not only is the "sex=consent" argument obviously morally reprehensible as fuck, there's a funny thing about consent.

It can be revoked.

If you're arguing you can't revoke consent, then you're not talking about consent at all, you're talking about ways to allow the violation of consent.

Saying "hey, you consented to sex, so you can't get an abortion" is literally the same argument a rapist uses when they say "hey, you consented to coming back to my place for a drink, so you don't get to leave until you fuck me". Literally the exact same absolutely awful reasoning.

Respect of women? More like the disrespect of human life. There's many pro life woman who would tell you the same

[Endus]

So you think a fetus turns into a carrot too huh?

I'm saying personhood is 100% irrelevant to the question of abortion rights, and the argument that it should be relevant is an intentional and deliberate refusal to acknowledge that women are human beings with rights.

Pro-life positions have nothing to do with the life of the fetus. They're about denying women their human rights.

Hmmm, killing a baby and ridding me of their upbringing or birth? Yeah no that is just laziness via a distorted way of "owning to your consequence".

Burning down your home for insurance would be a way to own up to ur financial troubles right. Though illigal. You get the point

No. I don't. You're not making any points, here. You're pushing emotional garbage to deflect away from the fundamental attack on women that is your actual purpose, here.

[Varx]

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.

Literal textbook definition.

Um yeah that's what I said...

Is a fetus a different species....

[Endus]

Respect of women? More like the disrespect of human life. There's many pro life woman who would tell you the same

Nope. I respect the fuck out of human life. So much I won't deny women their basic humanity.

Which is your entire position.

Again; there is literally no circumstance where one individual's right to life can be argued to trump another person's right to control the use of their own body. Not one. You want to claim pregnancy should be an exception, and you can't make a claim as to why. You keep going back to "but it's a human life", and that's not not an argument. That claim fails in every other case where these rights run up against each other, so why should it be different in the specific case of abortion?

You can't force me to donate blood to save someone's life.
You can't force me to donate a kidney.
You can't even harvest this material from my corpse after death unless I gave prior permission.

Because of bodily autonomy. Even if it will save another person's actual life. Even if I were to grant the argument of fetal personhood, it still does not constitute any argument to deny abortion rights. None. And you're not even trying to justify that.