SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Ripster42]

Because one of your argument is that it is unnecessary to put a limit. My country put one and I can guarantee that it is not unnecessary. Because it shoot down that argument (about having no limit, etc...).

Your country doesn't have a limit if you can get 2 doctors to say that it'll prevent injury (physical or mental, which means there is no limit) to the mother or if the baby has an incurable severe disease, not even a fatal disease. Your high horse is a dead donkey buried in a shallow grave.

[Edge-]

Because you can look on how it is done elsewhere. It is so american to think you do not need to.

And it's totally banned elsewhere. So what?

[Endus]

And it's totally banned elsewhere. So what?

Plus, on "necessity", a lot of people doing a thing can't prove it to be so. A small group or even a single individual not doing so can prove the reverse, though. If a culture (to make something up so I'm not picking on any particular real belief) believes that drinking soda is deadly, because the gasses will build up and you'll explode, in their culture banning soda might be seen as "necessary" to protect its citizens from accidental self-explosion. But one guy sitting down with several cases of club soda and guzzling all of it, belching outrageously as they go, can conclusively demonstrate that you won't, in fact, explode, and that law is therefore not "necessary"; it actually serves no meaningful purpose and is based solely on bad information and kneejerk reactions.

Which brings us back around, because as I've repeatedly pointed out, Canada has no specific legal constraints on abortion. Literally not even mentioned in our law codes. Been that way for decades. And we've had no negative consequences emerge from this. Laws restricting abortion are provably unnecessary, and claims that they are "necessary" can be, thus, discarded out of hand as false.

[Edge-]

Which brings us back around, because as I've repeatedly pointed out, Canada has no specific legal constraints on abortion. Literally not even mentioned in our law codes. Been that way for decades. And we've had no negative consequences emerge from this. Laws restricting abortion are provably unnecessary, and claims that they are "necessary" can be, thus, discarded out of hand as false.

You mean to tell me women in Canada aren't getting pregnant just so they can pursue an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy?! What a concept!

[Endus]

You mean to tell me women in Canada aren't getting pregnant just so they can pursue an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy?! What a concept!

In fact, our abortion rate is running about 15ish abortions per 1000 women of child-bearing age. And France, since that's apparently the comparison to be drawn, with their 14-week limit? They tend to run about 17 abortions per 1000 women of child-bearing age. The USA? Nearly 21 per 1000 women of child-bearing age.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...tes-by-country

It's almost like a lack of restrictions doesn't actually lead to exploding numbers of abortions. Just safer abortions and less harm inflicted upon women.

[Specialka]

In fact, our abortion rate is running about 15ish abortions per 1000 women of child-bearing age. And France, since that's apparently the comparison to be drawn, with their 14-week limit? They tend to run about 17 abortions per 1000 women of child-bearing age. The USA? Nearly 21 per 1000 women of child-bearing age.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...tes-by-country

It's almost like a lack of restrictions doesn't actually lead to exploding numbers of abortions. Just safer abortions and less harm inflicted upon women.

That is not what your number is telling, but I know you do not care about that.

- - - Updated - - -

And it's totally banned elsewhere. So what?

What is totally banned ? Abortion ?

[Edge-]

That is not what your number is telling, but I know you do not care about that.

What is it saying, then?

- - - Updated - - -

What is totally banned ? Abortion ?

Yeah. You know, the topic of this thread. And the topic we've been discussing back and forth for a handful of posts?

Did you suddenly think I was talking about total bans on owning bearded dragons or something?

[Specialka]

What is it saying, then?

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah. You know, the topic of this thread. And the topic we've been discussing back and forth for a handful of posts?

Did you suddenly think I was talking about total bans on owning bearded dragons or something?

Abortion is not banned in every country ? What are you talking about ?

And those numbers are not saying that. They may have another meaning, but not that one.

[Edge-]

Abortion is not banned in every country ? What are you talking about ?

Please quote where I wrote this.

And those numbers are not saying that. They may have another meaning, but not that one.

Then tell us the meaning and why Endus is wrong.

Because it sure seems to make sense. France and the US and other nations have laws limiting abortion access, Canada has nothing strict on the books. And despite this, Canada has a lower rate of abortions per-capita. Can we conclusively say the laws are responsible? No. But it does debunk the myth that if there wasn't a limit that women would just be getting pregnant so they can get abortion because that's just how women be, apparently.

[Poopymonster]

All it takes is one billboard to show that the GQP is full of shit about being Pro Life.



Most days they're be cheering the words on that billboard.

[Endus]

That is not what your number is telling, but I know you do not care about that.

If you're not going to make a counter-argument, don't waste everyone's time by playing coy with vague bullshit like this. We're not mind-readers and we can't tell what the hell you're trying to say unless you make at least a minimal effort to try and actually say it.

The figures do make a reasonable case for the notion that permissive-to-unregulated abortion practices do not lead to an increase in abortion rates. While I'll admit there's limited data points, what data we do have indicates, at a minimum, no correlation whatsoever, if not a potential negative correlation between the two.

You claimed laws restricting abortion were "necessary". Your word, not mine. I'm struggling what would create such a "necessity" if it weren't the idea that abortion access should be restricted, a position which would necessarily reduce the number of abortions permitted to be done, legally. And I'm pointing out that argument's horseshit, because there's no evidence that restricting abortion reduces abortion rates.

[Nymrohd]

I feel many western countries have laws restricting abortion cause the politicians just do not want to upset the voting minorities that would go off the rails if full on demand abortion was allowed. It's not that there are actual arguments for those restrictions (because either abortion is murder or it isn't, there isn't much middle ground there), it's that bringing the laws to parliament would be costly politically and they don't want to risk their seats over it. In many cases abortions still happen that are illegal but very rarely is anyone prosecuted but that doesn't change the fact that those women (and doctors) are still in danger of someone taking them to court (and it happens, we just choose to ignore it).
The problem with arguing for similar laws in the US as a compromise that is an easier sell for politicians is that the US has states effectively putting a bounty on women that have abortions and the doctors that perform them. If they tried for e.g. unrestricted if there is threat to life or health you know the anti-choice groups would be hounding every doctor and forcing them to explain in court why they deemed there was a threat to life and all the obvious effect that level of litigiousness would have. From Tea Party on the Conservatives are making it clear out loud that there can be no expectation of common sense and decency for them and they will use every option given to them to harm those they want to harm. So any legislation be it on a state or federal level that does not offer absolute clarity will lead to constant court challenges.

[Gelannerai]

All it takes is one billboard to show that the GQP is full of shit about being Pro Life.



Most days they're be cheering the words on that billboard.

Ok, to be fair, if your dad is Herschel Walker then that sign is pretty damn accurate.

[Kathandira]

Brings a whole new meaning to that "What is a woman?" horseshit.

I personally love the question. But I don't ask that of the progressives. I want conservatives to answer it. But they don't, because they say that they will get attacked if they do. Which is basically them telling on themselves.

[tehdang]

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.

More dehumanization from the pro-abort crowd. Yes, you started life prior to the transition through a birth canal or incision. No, that wasn't a quasi-religious ceremony where you suddenly became a person from being a non-person before.

And I'll believe you on whatever month you claim nobody is aborting babies in, when you vocally support restrictions on the practice. The Democrats have been conjuring up word salad to avoid answering in the negative to "What restrictions, if any, do you support on abortion?"

No dehumanizing here at all, just being honest. The body isn't what makes a person and at that state the body isn't even completely there. The consciousness is what makes a person and if it's not there, they aren't there.

I'm a little more compassionate than you about unconscious people. I don't think you should kill them, or deny them personhood. It didn't just become "your hand" and "your feet" after delivery into a lighted room. You weren't just a non-person, as expendable as your feces, prior to breathing air and being held.

Every premature birth is not a magical personhood ritual. They were people before, they were people after, and they're people if they're still undelivered after the due date.

Getting rid of a cluster of cells feeding off a host with zero consciousness isn't murder just like unplugging a brain dead family member on life support. The body doesn't make the person. The consciousness does.

Gestation is a period of growth before delivery. If the baby is akin to being brain-dead in the womb, then I'd argue you're trying to conflate removal of the dead body after a fetal death with aborting a live person with a developing brain. You may be aware of the advances in what science says about the pain response and babies recognizing voices prior to delivery. Pretty cool stuff, if you aren't intent on dehumanization as a means of justifying abortion.

Nope, the development of consciousness does. And if you have forced the person to create that consciousness against their will, your forced that child to be created even more than the parents did as they had no intent of even getting pregnant let along creating a child while you went out of your way with the intent of forcing that child to be created.

A living, developing child in the womb is not un-human prior to the final step of acquiring a consciousness of itself and the outside world. But I already covered this, and this is boilerplate abortion philosophical disagreement. At least from the section of pro-abortion activists that deny any moral dilemma regarding the developing baby, because I don't want to forget pro-abortion activists that's value the moral claims for the life of the baby, but decide that mothers' do outweigh it at all or most points.

Actually, the ones firebombing those centers would be your friends (If you actually believed what you post which I don't believe you do) as they are trying to force children to be created against the wishes of those involved. If they actually cared about the sanctity of life as they claimed they wouldn't be firebombing those places to protect non-existent kids and force them into existence, they would be helping the children who were born and actually exist distributing what you said but they aren't because they don't really care about the children.

Pro-choice activists have been firebombing crisis pregnancy centers knowing that they counsel in favor of keeping the baby. Your decision to try to shed them from your side is indicative of your need to never address anything unfortunate from your ideological side. Ignorance injures the ability to provide for children after birth, and undercuts your attempts to claim protection and provision for young babies. So maybe decry any fellow pro-choice activists that do harm to crisis pregnancy centers, because they certainly believe that their evil comes from encouraging and supporting a mother's decision to carry and birth the baby. Remember, people do watch the indifference from the pro-choice side when activists decide a center is doing evil in their counseling and seek to end it with arson and property destruction.

[Endus]

More dehumanization from the pro-abort crowd.

A fetus isn't a person. Pretty much every single law code on the planet agrees with this. Even if they were, it wouldn't affect abortion rights at all, because a hypothetical right to life for a fetus could never infringe on the right to bodily autonomy of the pregnant person.

Fetal personhood is a fight pro-lifers like because they get to feign a moral high ground, but it's a dishonest straw man that seeks to ignore the inherent question being asked, and which fundamentally dismisses the humanity of women, as a class. Meaning all this "you're dehumanizing fetuses!" garbage is nothing but projection.

Yes, you started life prior to the transition through a birth canal or incision. No, that wasn't a quasi-religious ceremony where you suddenly became a person from being a non-person before.

"Started life" is an irrelevant and biologically false statement. The donor parents were alive, their gametes were alive, the fertilized ovum was alive, the zygote it became was alive. At no point in that process was any of the component elements "not alive". No life "began", life was continuing to self-replicate. If you meant "a life", then you're again talking about a religious argument, and that's just not an argument, and you can stuff your theocratic views back where they came from.

Edit: Just for the sake of clarity, I couldn't care less what anyone's religious views are, generally, but there's a difference between "my religion says I shouldn't do a thing", and "my religion says you shouldn't do a thing". If you're arguing the latter, you can shove off, because you're dismissing other people's spiritual views and trying to enforce your views as a societal standard.

I'm a little more compassionate than you about unconscious people.

That's an intentional misrepresentation of Fugus' point. The concept of "consciousness" as a descriptor of a mind and the state of "consciousness" in terms of being awake or not are not the same thing.

Every premature birth is not a magical personhood ritual. They were people before, they were people after, and they're people if they're still undelivered after the due date.

This is just objectively false. "Personhood" is a legal concept. And the law is clear; here's the USA's; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

So you're technically right in that there's no magical ritual, which literally nobody claimed. But you're wrong in that there's a clear and objectively-determinable legal definition that's met by virtue of an infant being born alive.

Gestation is a period of growth before delivery. If the baby is akin to being brain-dead in the womb, then I'd argue you're trying to conflate removal of the dead body after a fetal death with aborting a live person with a developing brain. You may be aware of the advances in what science says about the pain response and babies recognizing voices prior to delivery. Pretty cool stuff, if you aren't intent on dehumanization as a means of justifying abortion.

Remains 100% irrelevant to the concept of abortion rights, however, because no rights of the infant to health or security can infringe on the pregnant person's right to self-ownership/bodily autonomy. This is true in every other case other than pregnancy, so why would pregnancy be an exception to that standard rule?

A living, developing child in the womb is not un-human prior to the final step of acquiring a consciousness of itself and the outside world. But I already covered this, and this is boilerplate abortion philosophical disagreement. At least from the section of pro-abortion activists that deny any moral dilemma regarding the developing baby, because I don't want to forget pro-abortion activists that's value the moral claims for the life of the baby, but decide that mothers' do outweigh it at all or most points.

Bodily autonomy does trump right to life under any other circumstances. That's why you can't have your organs or tissues/fluids forcibly harvested against your will to save someone else's life with a needed transplant. If you understand why that would be wrong, you understand why opposing abortion rights is equally wrong.

Pro-choice activists have been firebombing crisis pregnancy centers knowing that they counsel in favor of keeping the baby. Your decision to try to shed them from your side is indicative of your need to never address anything unfortunate from your ideological side. Ignorance injures the ability to provide for children after birth, and undercuts your attempts to claim protection and provision for young babies. So maybe decry any fellow pro-choice activists that do harm to crisis pregnancy centers, because they certainly believe that their evil comes from encouraging and supporting a mother's decision to carry and birth the baby. Remember, people do watch the indifference from the pro-choice side when activists decide a center is doing evil in their counseling and seek to end it with arson and property destruction.

As opposed to pro-lifers, who've historically engaged in straight up murder and bombings intended to kill people, rather than simply property damage. The most recent killing was a mass shooting in 2015. In terms of arson, no less than 6 attacks over the last couple years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-a...#United_States

And those "crisis pregnancy centers" are well-known for engaging in malicious and abusive conduct, to push ideological views rather than to serve patients' needs. Which you're going to ignore.

[Dontrike]

I'm a little more compassionate than you about unconscious people.

You shouldn't have brought that up, because you don't even know when a fetus is technically a person, when consciousness starts. Even the Bible tells you that a baby isn't alive until its first breath, science tells you you're wrong, and yet once again another viewpoint of yours is between idiotic and completely ignorant about anything past your own nose.

Also, no, you're not more compassionate about unconscious people, we know that because you're not even compassionate in the least bit for conscious people, like the women you try to control.

Which of these looks like a human with consciousness to you?

This is totally a person.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Republican enthusiasm for the election is still higher than Democrat. Yes, they need to campaign. They need to campaign hard. Democrats made the mistake of "I don't like Trump...but I don't really like Clinton either...I think I'll sit this one out" back in 2016.

To be fair, everyone knew Clinton was going to be the post-Obama candidate for 2016 since Obama was elected. The Republicans got to spend 8 years smearing Clinton with as many nontroversies as they could to sour sentiments about Clinton. To say 2016 was an entirely different thing is something of a massive understatement.

But this is a thread about abortion rights, so I suppose I will add... Clinton's major policy issues were of course college tuition, but also supreme court justices and ringing the alarm bells that Republicans would be coming for reproductive rights. Nobody believed her except for the "establishment Democrats" that everyone reviled. Everyone thought she was crazy, and that Republicans would neeeeeeeeeveeeeeeeeeeer touch abortion rights. Even Republicans were calling her crazy for claiming they were going after abortion rights.

Ah, vindication. Sucky vindication, but vindication.

[Belize]

More dehumanization from the pro-abort crowd.

Is this a person?


If so, when do legal rights and insurance coverage start?

[postman1782]

Is this a person?


If so, when do legal rights and insurance coverage start?

Well, the 14th amendment says when its born, so, these abortion laws are bullshit.