SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Pannonian]

Ffs, I literally said pregnancy viability. You even quoted it.

Ah, that may be a language problem. I thought pregnancy viability is about the viability of the fetus/baby - so if the baby is 100% healthy but the mother has a significant health risk giving birth, its okay for you?

[Endus]

I mean I've stated this time and time again as an exception, and you know this so I dunno why you acting all Pikachu face.

It's more that it's a direct admission that you don't actually believe the fetus is a human being, at all, and all that nonsense is just a cover for your animus against women.

Can I kill a 12 year old kid because his dad raped his mom? Or were you admitting that fetuses aren't actually human persons at the stages of development where abortion is an option? Pick A or B, because there is no C.

[Varx]

Hey listen, if conservatives are willing to pass reform to give women free contraceptives and improve sexual education in schools, as well sweeping reforms that give financial support for infants and children in low income households, I might reconsider this whole pro-choice thing.

But we know conservatives don't care about life. They only care about controlling women's bodies. So none of that is going to happen, and I'll continue to support pro-choice efforts.

Thank you!!!

Look I know many politicians are corrupt but this ain't handmaid's tale. There ain't no secret agenda to oppress women. And if there was I ain't for it. Despite what some here think.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah, that me be a language problem. I thought pregnancy viability is about the viability of the fetus/baby - so if the baby is 100% healthy but the mother has a significant health risk giving birth, its okay for you?

.... Yes, as terrible as that is. Yes. But that's assuming all possibilities to preserve both lives have been exhausted.

- - - Updated - - -

It's more that it's a direct admission that you don't actually believe the fetus is a human being, at all, and all that nonsense is just a cover for your animus against women.

Can I kill a 12 year old kid because his dad raped his mom? Or were you admitting that fetuses aren't actually human persons at the stages of development where abortion is an option? Pick A or B, because there is no C.

I know this is messy ground and I get what you're coming from. But rape is an extreme.

Now if a raped woman waits for months to finally agree to an abortion then I'd say no. But. As soon as possible then yes.

But hey extremes are extremes.

- - - Updated - - -

[Endus]

I know this is messy ground and I get what you're coming from. But rape is an extreme.

Now if a raped woman waits for months to finally agree to an abortion then I'd say no. But. As soon as possible then yes.

But hey extremes are extremes.

It's actually very clear ground. What you're running into is that your stated premises, such as "life begins at conception and the fetus is a human being from that point on", don't hold up to the pressure of real circumstances, because it would require you to deny abortion rights to, say, a 12-year old girl who was repeatedly raped by her own father and was now pregnant. So you want to make an exception for cases like that.

What you should be doing is recognizing that the problem is your base premise. Even you don't actually believe it, because if you did, you'd see that fetus as just as "human" as the 12-year old. Clearly, you can tell the difference, and don't consider them the same thing. But you want us to argue with that presumption.

Well, no. Why would we entertain ideas even you know are bullshit?

And once we've knocked that premise out, you don't really have any basis for opposing abortion rights. Your entire argument was predicated upon a false statement you don't even believe, by your own admission. Even you know you're wrong, when push comes to shove at these "extreme" positions (not that extreme).

If you have to make exceptions to your base premises in "extreme" situations, your base premise does not hold up.

[Varx]

It's actually very clear ground. What you're running into is that your stated premises, such as "life begins at conception and the fetus is a human being from that point on", don't hold up to the pressure of real circumstances, because it would require you to deny abortion rights to, say, a 12-year old girl who was repeatedly raped by her own father and was now pregnant. So you want to make an exception for cases like that.

What you should be doing is recognizing that the problem is your base premise. Even you don't actually believe it, because if you did, you'd see that fetus as just as "human" as the 12-year old. Clearly, you can tell the difference, and don't consider them the same thing. But you want us to argue with that presumption.

Well, no. Why would we entertain ideas even you know are bullshit?

And once we've knocked that premise out, you don't really have any basis for opposing abortion rights. Your entire argument was predicated upon a false statement you don't even believe, by your own admission. Even you know you're wrong, when push comes to shove at these "extreme" positions (not that extreme).

If you have to make exceptions to your base premises in "extreme" situations, your base premise does not hold up.

Of course it does...

There are always exceptions for everything. But exceptions don't make the rule, they define them...

That's why an extreme is what it is.

And against it has to been within reasonable time..

I wouldn't support a rape victim who waited 6 months to get an abortion after the fact.

[Endus]

Of course it does...

There are always exceptions for everything. But exceptions don't make the rule, they define them...

That's why an extreme is what it is.

That's not how logic works. If there's an exception to a premise, that premise is flawed. In this case, you've admitted explicitly that you agree that fetuses are not full human beings and that they can be aborted, the only question is the specific circumstances, and you're not making any arguments on why they should be denied.

[Varx]

That's not how logic works. If there's an exception to a premise, that premise is flawed. In this case, you've admitted explicitly that you agree that fetuses are not full human beings and that they can be aborted, the only question is the specific circumstances, and you're not making any arguments on why they should be denied.

Society ain't black and white. We don't live in a perfect logical vacuum. We're not robots.

So yes, society is flawed. But that's part of human nature. So yeah, exceptions are always going to exist but it's not prudent to let them make the rules.

[Endus]

Society ain't black and white. We don't live in a perfect vacuum.

It's not about "black and white". It's about valid or invalid. It's that if you argue for Maxim A, and it has exceptions B and C, then you're admitting Maxim A does not hold up to scrutiny and is not actually true. Why would we entertain an argument even you admit doesn't actually function?
You can't have something that's valid except for all the times where it isn't; that's just invalid. Literally all you need to prove is one case that doesn't fit and you invalidate the maxim.

[Varx]

It's not about "black and white". It's about valid or invalid. It's that if you argue for Maxim A, and it has exceptions B and C, then you're admitting Maxim A does not hold up to scrutiny and is not actually true. Why would we entertain an argument even you admit doesn't actually function?
You can't have something that's valid except for all the times where it isn't; that's just invalid. Literally all you need to prove is one case that doesn't fit and you invalidate the maxim.

But dude we're not robots.

We don't live as dictated by a program code. life is chaotic, which is why we have society, to best order that chaos.

But given human nature it's not going to be perfect.

Rape is part of that chaos with consequences that are very difficulty to find a remedy for.

If we had robotic linear way of thinking then it wouldn't be an issue, but we don't.

[Mekh]

But dude we're not robots.

We don't live as dictated by a program code. life is chaotic, which is why we have society, to best order that chaos.

But given human nature it's not going to be perfect.

Rape is part of that chaos with consequences that are very difficulty to find a remedy for.

If we had robotic linear way of thinking then it wouldn't be an issue, but we don't.

Lots of words to say "I arbitrarily make shit up as I go along, which is also why I decided women are incubators."

[Cthulhu 2020]

Not at the moment but working on it with the Mrs after two consecutive miscarriages, so I have a warped idea of it yes...

And let me tell you the Mrs is as pro life as you can get after experiencing something so horrific.

But that's how life is. You learn via experiences, the shittiest being the best teachers if all.

But I know therapy ain't the best thing In the world but it is better than murder.

Someone who has a wife and a stable job who wants a family is pro-life? And is trying to force others to give birth when they don't want to or don't have the means to support it? QUE SHOQUE!

Anyway, if you're pro-life, have at it brother. You don't have to get an abortion and neither does your wife! Stay out of other people's lives, whose circumstances you don't know and obviously can't sympathize with.

[Varx]

Lots of words to say "I arbitrarily make shit up as I go along, which is also why I decided women are incubators."

All of society is based off of arbitration. If not we'd all be wild animals killing each other to survive. You realize this right?

- - - Updated - - -

Someone who has a wife and a stable job who wants a family is pro-life? And is trying to force others to give birth when they don't want to or don't have the means to support it? QUE SHOQUE!

Anyway, if you're pro-life, have at it brother. You don't have to get an abortion and neither does your wife! Stay out of other people's lives, whose circumstances you don't know and obviously can't sympathize with.

Let me ask you this.

If we had the best possible system for adoption and welfare for single or unexpected mothers imaginable. Would you be pro life?

[Mekh]

All of society is based off of arbitration. If not we'd all be wild animals killing each other to survive.

I thought we'd be robots? Programmed like cancer?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Thank you!!!

Look I know many politicians are corrupt but this ain't handmaid's tale. There ain't no secret agenda to oppress women. And if there was I ain't for it. Despite what some here think.

I can respect that you're not for Gilead, but there are many Republicans on the record stating they want to implement measures and policy that would effectively make this Handmaid's Tale. And voting for them is a support for such measures.

Women got to be people approximately 100 years ago in the USA. Anyone who denies that there are any lingering parts of the culture that still want to return to the "old ways" just demonstrates wild ignorance.

[Varx]

I thought we'd be robots? Programmed like cancer?

I said we're not robots.... But society tries it's best to order human chaos....

Your lack of reading comprehension continues to show.

- - - Updated - - -

I can respect that you're not for Gilead, but there are many Republicans on the record stating they want to implement measures and policy that would effectively make this Handmaid's Tale. And voting for them is a support for such measures.

Women got to be people approximately 100 years ago in the USA. Anyone who denies that there are any lingering parts of the culture that still want to return to the "old ways" just demonstrates wild ignorance.

Well you wouldn't catch me on that train. But as I said this system ain't perfect. I'm just voicing my opinions.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Let me ask you this.

If we had the best possible system for adoption and welfare for single or unexpected mothers imaginable. Would you be pro life?

I probably wouldn't be pro-life at my core, as I still believe in people's right to bodily autonomy. For instance, you can't be forced to give up a liver for someone dying of liver disease. Why should a womb be forced to carry a fetus to term?

But I would be much more sympathetic and much less opposed to pro-life if the pro-lifers demonstrated that they actually cared about the life they were bringing into this world through force.

But we both know that isn't true. And it never will be. The pro-life movement in the USA has its roots in controlling women and their bodies, and will never actually be about life. So why is this hypothetical an important question?

[Edge-]

I probably wouldn't be pro-life

Reminder that this is a strawman term that means absolutely nothing, and often has a contradictory meaning.

It's about bodily autonomy. Pure and simple.

[Mekh]

Your lack of reading comprehension continues to show.

Fun coming from someone who thinks "arbitrary" means things have been "arbitrated". Is English like your second language or something? Your Hispanic mom no teach you very good?

[Varx]

It's not about "black and white". It's about valid or invalid. It's that if you argue for Maxim A, and it has exceptions B and C, then you're admitting Maxim A does not hold up to scrutiny and is not actually true. Why would we entertain an argument even you admit doesn't actually function?
You can't have something that's valid except for all the times where it isn't; that's just invalid. Literally all you need to prove is one case that doesn't fit and you invalidate the maxim.

Let's look at freedom of speech and right to privacy.

Both are absolute, but both have exceptions.

For speech, you can't say things like "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded space. But you apply that exception to everyday life then you have rampant censorship of speech.

For the 4th amendment, the government. Isn't allow to walk into your home with our a warrant. An exception would be in hot pursuit of a criminal who breaks into a home.

Apply that exception to everyday life then you can imagine how that would impact our liberty from the government.


Abortion is a perfect example to apply the exception as the rule.

Now we have perfectly viable pregnancies from sexually consenting mothers who are more than capable of raising the child.

- - - Updated - - -

I probably wouldn't be pro-life at my core, as I still believe in people's right to bodily autonomy. For instance, you can't be forced to give up a liver for someone dying of liver disease. Why should a womb be forced to carry a fetus to term?

But I would be much more sympathetic and much less opposed to pro-life if the pro-lifers demonstrated that they actually cared about the life they were bringing into this world through force.

But we both know that isn't true. And it never will be. The pro-life movement in the USA has its roots in controlling women and their bodies, and will never actually be about life. So why is this hypothetical an important question?

Because many pro choicers wouldn't think twice to kill a healthy baby if they had all the resources I'm the world just because they want to.

How is that any different that cold blood murder?

- - - Updated - - -

Reminder that this is a strawman term that means absolutely nothing, and often has a contradictory meaning.

It's about bodily autonomy. Pure and simple.

Like this.

- - - Updated - - -

Fun coming from someone who thinks "arbitrary" means things have been "arbitrated". Is English like your second language or something? Your Hispanic mom no teach you very good?

Being arbitrated is to have a dispute settled.

Who settling most disputes in the world. Courts created by arbitrary human laws or skynet?

[Mekh]

Because many pro choicers wouldn't think twice to kill a healthy baby.

Healthy babies get delivered. Fetuses get aborted. You want to vote in this country, learn the language.