SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Varx]

wtf are you on about? Cancer isn't programmed to do anything.

You do realize I didn't mean that cancer is a computer software program right? Read the context.

Cancer has one function and one only. We. Ith know what that is.

[Pannonian]

I'm not disputing that pregnancy and cancer both deal in mitosis. I'm just saying that it's completely pointless in this argument.

Shows how little respect pro choicers have towards life.

And yet I'm the bad guy, lol my god.

And the next religious talking point - "respect for life" - has no place in a scientific debate - just like your feelings. If you cannot stomach it, maybe that's not the topic for you...

[Edge-]

I'm not disputing that pregnancy and cancer both deal in mitosis. I'm just saying that it's completely pointless in this argument.

Shows how little respect pro choicers have towards life.

And yet I'm the bad guy, lol my god.

Define "life", then? Because most of the definitions for "life" in an embryo and early cancer development would apply. The only difference is, "Well the embryo might develop further if there aren't complications." which like...yeah? And?

[Pannonian]

You do realize I didn't mean that cancer is a computer software program right? Read the context.

Cancer has one function and one only. We. Ith know what that is.

What are you on about? Cancer is in essence a lifeform that wants to survive, like any other lifeform. Or to be even more abstract - a complex system separate from the entropy of the universe, that tries to keep this separation going on, by constantly seeking and transforming energy, until it inevitable breaks up, and the entropy will win.

[Endus]

I think the fact that I'm not religious scares you because it shows you the type of person you are huh? So you resort to call me a lyer.

I ain't rejecting science. Having one similarity between cancer and early pregnancy doesn't make them the same.

Your claims to be irreligious don't "scare" anyone. You can't provide any secular reasoning to justify your position, because it's inherently not based on secular reality, and thus we can all tell you're pushing some kind of faith-based dogma about human souls, even if you don't want to come right out and say it. If you could actually make a solid, secular case against abortion, that would be fascinating, considering this "debate" has been ongoing for better than a half-century now and literally no person has ever produced a single secular argument based on reason and science to oppose abortion rights for women. You'd be the first. So we have to wonder; why aren't you making that case?

The easy assumption is that, like everyone else who's tried, you're actually just pushing religious dogma and lying about it. And that assumption will remain until you actually provide that earth-shattering new reasoning that nobody's ever managed to come up with before you, today, that's so ironclad it convinces all of us that we're wrong about all this.

Put up or shut up, basically.

[Varx]

And even if 3,999,999,999 woman are pro-life, it doesn't mean that the only pro-abortion woman should be forced to do anything.

And i know exactly what you mean by natural, that's why i highlighted it. it present the flaw in all your arguments perfectly. You somehow get to choose what is natural and what not, which is only based on your subjective belief, not on measurable level.

Still you havent ansered my question: Would you be fine to be forced to be pregnant all the time?

No because rape is bad...

I'm only fine with it if it's consensual.

And yeah they should be forced to if not raped. The child is innocent. No one is forcing anyone to get pregnant

[Mekh]

Also, for the record, there is no reason to liken pregnancy to cancer. There's stupidly long lists of actual side-effects of pregnancy. Spoilers: it's so bad, that if they were the side-effects to a "Grow a baby in 9 months!"-pill, it wouldn't be allowed by the CDC.

[Endus]

Define "life", then? Because most of the definitions for "life" in an embryo and early cancer development would apply. The only difference is, "Well the embryo might develop further if there aren't complications." which like...yeah? And?

Let's note again that all gametes are "life", are "alive". So we're back to every man's masturbatory ejaculation being a Holocaust-level mass slaughter. Hell, even successful fertilizations are Holocausts.

[Mekh]

Cancer has one function and one only.

Which is? /10char

[Endus]

No because rape is bad...

I'm only fine with it if it's consensual.

And yeah they should be forced to if not raped. The child is innocent. No one is forcing anyone to get pregnant

Funny how you stop caring about consent the moment the woman's pregnant. Then, her consent literally does not matter to you.

That's the whole issue, here.

[Varx]

Define "life", then? Because most of the definitions for "life" in an embryo and early cancer development would apply. The only difference is, "Well the embryo might develop further if there aren't complications." which like...yeah? And?

What?????

You seriously comparing a tumor to a baby???

[Pannonian]

No because rape is bad...

I'm only fine with it if it's consensual.

And yeah they should be forced to if not raped. The child is innocent. No one is forcing anyone to get pregnant

Well, @Endus put it much more eloquently than i ever could, but glad you finally showing your true colors. So just to get it straight. Because you describe some immaterial features based on your personal beliefs to a lump of cells, you're fine with taking away rights from half the human population. Glad we could clear that up.

Pro-tip: Contraception can fail, and abortions happen because of medical necessity, but that would make the colorful and easy to understand world of yours to complicated. Am i right?

[Varx]

Funny how you stop caring about consent the moment the woman's pregnant. Then, her consent literally does not matter to you.

That's the whole issue, here.

Because consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.

You an adult, you know what the gamble is?

You go out gambling you know exactly what you're signing up for

[Pannonian]

What?????

You seriously comparing a tumor to a baby???

Several people did this, and after 4 pages you can stop with this pearl clutching posts. We are still waiting for a single point of yours that's not based on your religious beliefs.

[Endus]

Because consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.

This is both categorically false and such a galling example of brutal misogyny that it says everything anyone needs to know about the origin of your views.

Straight up Handmaid's Tale bullshit.

[Pannonian]

Because consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.

You an adult, you know what the gamble is?

You go out gambling you know exactly what you're signing up for

No, this is not how that works. Consent to sex is consent to sex, up to the point where consent is withdrawn (and if its in the middle of the action). There is no implicated pregnancy consent. Again, this is you projecting your religion on society.

[Varx]

Well, @Endus put it much more eloquently than i ever could, but glad you finally showing your true colors. So just to get it straight. Because you describe some immaterial features based on your personal beliefs to a lump of cells, you're fine with taking away rights from half the human population. Glad we could clear that up.

Pro-tip: Contraception can fail, and abortions happen because of medical necessity, but that would make the colorful and easy to understand world of yours to complicated. Am i right?

I already said that inviable pregnancy are okay to terminate.

But yeah half the population doesn't have the right to murder. That's as simple as it is. No one is forcing that half to conceive and if you can't afford failed contraceptives then don't have sex, period.

[tehdang]

You'd be surprised how many pro choicers make similar insane comparisons.

Congrats you've taken a small, yet significant step into pro life. We meet every Wednesday and bring empanadas

And to think I’ve been missing the empanadas this whole time.

The radical comparisons like cancer or organ donation just affect the political winds pushing on people without firm convictions. Its a weakness in popular argument, but it doesn’t invalidate all the others. Allowances for the failure of birth control, allowances for youth, allowances for the father abandoning responsibility, allowances for very early stage abortions after a mistake. Those all involve compromises. Those are still around even as the pro choice side becomes more shrill and dogmatic. Especially on the internet.

[Edge-]

What?????

You seriously comparing a tumor to a baby???

I'm asking for a clear definition of "life" that doesn't involve metaphysical explanations like a "soul". Which you have yet to elucidate.

We're all waiting, though.

[Endus]

No, this is not how that works. Consent to sex is consent to sex, up to the point where consent is withdrawn (and if its in the middle of the action). There is no implicated pregnancy consent. Again, this is you projecting your religion on society.

This is the key bit he's willfully ignoring; consent is an active process. It can, at any moment, be withdrawn. Abortion is the withdrawal of consent to remain pregnant, essentially.

Saying you can't withdraw consent is the kind of shit rapists try and argue; "she said she wanted it, she doesn't get to tell me "no" once I've got my pants off!" Literally that same misogyny.