SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[tehdang]

Maybe start treating women as real people first, and then we'll talk about being civil to Conservatives.

Half the unborn are women, but that never stopped the pro-abortion crowd.

This isn't meant to encourage you to default to others' using "cheeto god" or "white replacement/nationalist" tell you" (the response to which you are quoting now) when the conversation gets tough. I'll assume you aren't acting as a mouthpiece for other people whose evil bona fides are uncontested, if you'll afford other people posting here the same.

[Endus]

Half the unborn are women, but that never stopped the pro-abortion crowd.

The "unborn" are an imaginary bloc of theoretical people who don't actually exist. The women to whom you're denying the right to control their own bodies, however, actually do exist.

[Edge-]

Half the unborn are women

No, they're fetuses.

[Fugus]

No, they're fetuses.

Not responding to him because I know he doesn’t actually believe the stuff he pushes but…

I do find it funny how many conservatives plead to force people to actually create lives against their will pretending it was a living being anymore than a tape worm at that stage and just as much of a soul and intelligence but then wants to abandon the child that they themselves forced to be created chanting “personal responsibility” while denying the child and their family proper access to healthcare, education and suitable housing.

Know countless over the years that respond to issues with “Not my problem” even if it was their fault just because the mess they created landed on someone else’s lap. And the moment it does land on their laps they turn into a full hypocrite but only for themselves on that single issue because they needed and deserved it but no one else does unless they liked them.

[s_bushido]

Half the unborn are women, but that never stopped the pro-abortion crowd.

Brings a whole new meaning to that "What is a woman?" horseshit. And here I was thinking that "adult" was part of the transphobes' preferred definition. That is, when they're not talking marrying and impregnating teenage women girls.

[tehdang]

No, they're fetuses.

Just when I thought it couldn't get better than accusing someone of not treating women as real people, we have someone wondering where men and women come from.

pretending it was a living being anymore than a tape worm at that stage

the mess they created

A lot of dehumanization going on here. But I am more than happy for pro-abortion types to call babies in early development "no more a living being anymore than a tape worm" and "the mess they created" because that illustrates the extent of the problem.

the child that they themselves forced to be created

Oh, now it's magically humanized as a "child", although you've got some murky parts on when the "created" happened.

chanting “personal responsibility” while denying the child and their family proper access to healthcare, education and suitable housing.

The people firebombing and attacking crisis pregnancy centers are your allies, not mine. Maybe let them distribute diapers, food, cribs, carseats, baby carriers, and a host of other things if this is really important to you.

Brings a whole new meaning to that "What is a woman?" horseshit. And here I was thinking that "adult" was part of the transphobes' preferred definition. That is, when they're not talking marrying and impregnating teenage women girls.

Use female and male if you're stuck on the semantics and early development of men and women. Unless you're trying to imply you existed as something else prior to actual birth.


I'm not even going to touch your gender/gender identity based slur of transphobe. I've seen the rules and don't want to tempt their uneven application.

[Glorious Leader]

No, they're fetuses.

And even if he genuinely believes they are people he's asking them to be born into a world without basic human rights.

[Dontrike]

Half the unborn are women, but that never stopped the pro-abortion crowd.

What you said is maddeningly stupid, especially when you consider there's a number of abortions that occur before the fetus/cells has an assigned sex. Seriously, how you're that ignorant is utterly baffling.

[Endus]

A lot of dehumanization going on here. But I am more than happy for pro-abortion types to call babies in early development "no more a living being anymore than a tape worm" and "the mess they created" because that illustrates the extent of the problem.

Not only is this an intentionally misleading argument that no right-wingers actually believe to be true (are all miscarriages to be investigated as potential homicides? Can you claim the fetus as a dependent on your taxes?), it's also fundamentally irrelevant and only used so you can avoid the real conversation.

Which is about bodily autonomy. Self-ownership. A human right which trumps all others, including anyone else's right to life, even if it were to exist. If we take a 6-month old human infant, which everyone basically agrees is a "baby", is a "child", is a "human being" with full rights and freedoms, and we presume that infant is sick and needs blood transfusions but needs special blood with unique properties that only a handful of people have, including its mother, you can't force the mother to give that blood donation. Nor anyone else, for that matter. Their bodily autonomy always trumps any right to life of that child. In every set of circumstances. Except pregnancy, and only until birth, according to religious theocrats like yourself who want their religious views about pregnancy to be made into law and applied to everyone. There's no consistency there. No basis for argument. Just "my religion says so, and you shouldn't have the freedom to make that choice". It isn't about "human life"; it's an argument about religious subjugation of others, intentional dehumanization of women, and the infliction of suffering.

Pro-life arguments are never made in good faith. None of you are honest about your intent or reasoning.

[bladeXcrasher]

Pro-life arguments are never made in good faith. None of you are honest about your intent or reasoning.

Anti-choice...because they really don't care about life. They are fine with the death penalty, fine with child mortality, fine with mortality all around basically.

[Edge-]

Just when I thought it couldn't get better than accusing someone of not treating women as real people, we have someone wondering where men and women come from.

I'm quite clear on the matter.

Unless you're going to allege that every menstruation is actually murder. Or that every male ejaculation is actually mass-murder.

Which if we're to take your logic that a developing fetus is actually a whole-ass person rather than just the potential for a person, then the other potential parts that create a person are necessarily personified too.

Damn man, every teenage boy and adult male belongs in jail for mass murder. Even if the never jerk off, everyone has had a wet dream at some point, it's just a natural part of life. That wet dream was mass murder, apparently.

[Vladier]

I'm quite clear on the matter.

Unless you're going to allege that every menstruation is actually murder. Or that every male ejaculation is actually mass-murder.

Which if we're to take your logic that a developing fetus is actually a whole-ass person rather than just the potential for a person, then the other potential parts that create a person are necessarily personified too.

Damn man, every teenage boy and adult male belongs in jail for mass murder. Even if the never jerk off, everyone has had a wet dream at some point, it's just a natural part of life. That wet dream was mass murder, apparently.

Not only that, but also, since a single egg can only be fertilized by one sperm cell and leaves all others to die, no single conception goes without a mass murder. The entire concept of human procreation is filled with genocide, apparently.

[Belize]

Half the unborn are women, but that never stopped the pro-abortion crowd.

Fetuses aren't people. You're not killing anything because it couldn't survive on its own outside the womb.

And no, no one is aborting babies 8 months in, to preempt the next retarded platitude you'll inevitably spew out.

[Specialka]

Fetuses aren't people. You're not killing anything because it couldn't survive on its own outside the womb.

And no, no one is aborting babies 8 months in, to preempt the next retarded platitude you'll inevitably spew out.

Is there not some states where you could ? Where you have no limit to do an abortion ?

[Endus]

Is there not some states where you could ? Where you have no limit to do an abortion ?

Even in places without legal restrictions, like Canada, that late it would only be medically justifiable in extreme circumstances, and inducing early labor would be the method of choice in most cases, leading to a birth (though likely stillborn or soon to pass naturally)

[Edge-]

Is there not some states where you could ? Where you have no limit to do an abortion ?

Realistically, I'm unaware of any. Generally fetal viability is a cutoff point that is agreed to unless the health of the mother is in jeopardy etc. Also it's largely a non-issue and a bad faith strawman pushed by conservatives, fearing something that simply just doesn't really happen.

[Specialka]

Realistically, I'm unaware of any. Generally fetal viability is a cutoff point that is agreed to unless the health of the mother is in jeopardy etc. Also it's largely a non-issue and a bad faith strawman pushed by conservatives, fearing something that simply just doesn't really happen.

But if there is "no legal limit", it is something that could happen, hence put a limit and you destroy their argument about that.

[Edge-]

But if there is "no legal limit", it is something that could happen, hence put a limit and you destroy their argument about that.

Why are we creating largely unnecessary limitations that have no real practical application?

To take this position seriously, we'd need to believe that women are just intentionally waiting until they're 8 month's pregnant, have gone through many of the risks and complications of any pregnancy (which are considerably higher in conservative states due to their policies, I'll note), and then suddenly decide they're done and want the pregnancy terminated for no reason other than "just because".

Do you have examples of this to show that such a law is required?

[Specialka]

Why are we creating largely unnecessary limitations that have no real practical application?

To take this position seriously, we'd need to believe that women are just intentionally waiting until they're 8 month's pregnant, have gone through many of the risks and complications of any pregnancy (which are considerably higher in conservative states due to their policies, I'll note), and then suddenly decide they're done and want the pregnancy terminated for no reason other than "just because".

Do you have examples of this to show that such a law is required?

So if it does not affect anyone, there is no issue in putting a limit. Conservatives won't whine about it, and you shot down their argument.

[Edge-]

So if it does not affect anyone, there is no issue in putting a limit.

Unnecessary legislation is unnecessary.

Conservatives won't whine about it, and you shot down their argument.

I'd think they would given their hatred of "unnecessary legislation" being a symptom of "BIG GOVERNMENT"!

Again, it's a bad-faith argument and not one worth granting any credibility. You still have yet to show there's a need for the laws. Laws do, and should, only exist because there's a practical need for them.