SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Varx]

So, it's not a human. You just expanded your definition of a human by adding the womb requirement.

Right, but I haven't been talking about in vitro this whole time.

Someone who is doing in vitro is trying to get pregnant so that's irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't have "exceptions" to murder, you do. I continue to point out that you hold contradictory views.

U gonna let a burglar threaten your family? Lol wtf???

Fucking guys hold a knife to your baby you not gonna paint the wall with his brains if you get the chance ?

[Orange Joe]

That's just part one. Of conception part two is implantation of the uterus

I know I said the former before but I wasn't talking about I'm vitro then.

Only way u gonna stop implantation naturally is via the MA pill.

Can you show me a science paper that say conception is a 2 stage process? At what point does stage 2 start and end? Is there a stage 3? Why is it now more of a human at stage 2 and not stage 1?

- - - Updated - - -

Right, but I haven't been talking about in vitro this whole time.

Someone who is doing in vitro is trying to get pregnant so that's irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -



U gonna let a burglar threaten your family? Lol wtf???

Fucking guys hold a knife to your baby you not gonna paint the wall with his brains if you get the chance ?

Not trying to speak for edge but 99.9% sure self defense isn't murder

[Edge-]

U gonna let a burglar threaten your family? Lol wtf???

Fucking guys hold a knife to your baby you not gonna paint the wall with his brains if you get the chance ?

What zygotes are holding knives to a girl/woman's throat?

[Mekh]

Someone who is doing in vitro is trying to get pregnant so that's irrelevant.

The real question is:

A Planned Parenthood clinic is on fire. You can go inside and carry out the fridge of petri dishes, saving hundreds if not thousands of humans, or you can save maybe one or two people. What do you do?

[Endus]

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

Both are absolute, but both have exceptions.

That's a contradiction. A right can't both be "absolute" and "restricted". The reality is that all freedoms have limitations.

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.

And the realistic way to interpret that is that the "right to free speech" is not, by definition, absolute; it has clear limits, largely predicated on the "harm principle", where said speech causes undue harm to others. See also defamation, child porn, etc.

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.

Again, you're literally acknowledging the limits of the right, and that it is not absolute.

You're the only one here thinking in black-and-white terms. That you're thinking in "black and white, but also exceptions" just means your position is also inherently contradictory and neurotic.

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.

Except the "rule" here is that "bodily autonomy of a person shall not be abrogated for the needs of another person, even if those needs are to preserve that other person's life".

If you want to argue an exception to that premise, you're gonna have to make that argument, and you haven't even tried. Note that the premise inherently denies "the other person has a right to life" as grounds for an exception, since if that qualified, we'd permit the harvesting of healthy organs and tissue against the individual's will to save the lives of others. We clearly don't. Because right to life is not considered higher right than bodily autonomy, that would justify trumping the latter.

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.

We're not talking about healthy babies in the first place. Also, to make the point, if a baby needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was literally the only person in the world who had the right blood to save them, I still can't be forced to donate that blood to save that actual child. Right to life never trumps right to bodily autonomy. If you want to argue that abortion should be an exception to that principle, the onus lies on you to make that case, on some grounds other than right to life, which has already been considered and denied in all cases.

[Cthulhu 2020]

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?

I've never seen anyone claim to ever want to kill a baby. And a fetus != baby.

But you didn't respond to my post at all. Just claimed people wanted to baby murder.

So what's your actual response to this:

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?

Do you find some kind of comraderie or solace in knowing that someone who is pro-choice would be more open to anti-abortion law if it came with significant compensation and care for the mother and child for the first several years of the child's life?

Again, this is just a fairy tale. Pro-lifers would never in a million years, as a movement as a whole, don't care about "life". Maybe 5% would want to fund life after birth. And that's being super generous.

As George Carlin famously said,

[Varx]

So your definition was incomplete? Again?

OrangeJoe asked when sperm becomes human and... let's check the files... ah, here we go.



What's up with that?

Not taking Iv Into account

Once natural fertilization happens the egg is going to implant

[Orange Joe]

Not taking Iv Into account

Once natural fertilization happens the egg is going to implant

That's not the answer you gave me.

[Varx]

That's not the answer you gave me.

Look I'm driving and have the entire thread responding to me so kinda hard to keep track

*****************

Just answer this guys

If we could have the best possible adoption and single mother welfare and resource system imaginable with the best possible sex ed and access to contraceptives.

Would you guys flip, yes or no?

[Edge-]

Just answer this guys

If we could have the best possible adoption and single mother welfare and resource system imaginable with the best possible sex ed and access to contraceptives.

Would you guys flip, yes or no?

Why do you keep expecting any answer beyond, "We respect bodily autonomy."? It doesn't matter how you reframe the question to try to get a different answer, it's going to be the same answer.

[Varx]

Why do you keep expecting any answer beyond, "We respect bodily autonomy."? It doesn't matter how you reframe the question to try to get a different answer, it's going to be the same answer.

Yes or no

10 char

[Cthulhu 2020]

I don't think any of us would ever "Flip" since "bodily autonomy" > "preserving life" or in reality, controlling women's bodies.

As I've said, I'd be more open and accepting to the idea of abortion bans if we overhauled sex ed and never taught abstinence only, funded free contraception including condoms, birth control, plan B, etc. and provided significant compensation for women in poverty who carry babies to term.

But that's not happening. And it's not happening because the "pro-life" movement doesn't care about life. These are the 2A lovers, after all. On top of just in general hating people in poverty, and claiming they deserve to be there because "they didn't work hard enough" when most people in that position are working 80 hours a week.

Japan is introducing more maternal AND paternal leave in an effort to encourage people to have babies. Meanwhile the US continues to slash worker rights and compensation laws.

In 1960, Japan had the option of cutting corporate taxes, but it didn't. Instead it invested in fortifying, educating, training, and properly compensating its work force. While "the lost generation" does exist, it does so more because of the recession, and not because workers are not properly compensated in Japan.


One thing I found sad, was that during COVID, everyone found out just how crucial minimum wage workers are to businesses. The local taco bells and mcdonalds that were once 24 hours still advertise as being 24h, but when I go to their drive thru it's either dark, or I'm told they're not serving at that hour. Why? Lack of employees. I sit and watch, and tons of cars go through the drive thru. Businesses are losing tons of money because they simply refuse to pay a decent wage on principle.

I'd think that this would show Republicans just how essential minimum wage workers are for their every day business operation, but nope. Why should I have ever expected that? They'll never respect the proletariat.

But this is a thread about abortion. That's just a tangent about how Republicans continuously disrespect and don't care about life outside of the womb.

[Varx]

I don't think any of us would ever "Flip" since "bodily autonomy" > "preserving life" or in reality, controlling women's bodies.

As I've said, I'd be more open and accepting to the idea of abortion bans if we overhauled sex ed and never taught abstinence only, funded free contraception including condoms, birth control, plan B, etc. and provided significant compensation for women in poverty who carry babies to term.

But that's not happening. And it's not happening because the "pro-life" movement doesn't care about life. These are the 2A lovers, after all. On top of just in general hating people in poverty, and claiming they deserve to be there because "they didn't work hard enough" when most people in that position are working 80 hours a week.

Japan is introducing more maternal AND paternal leave in an effort to encourage people to have babies. Meanwhile the US continues to slash worker rights and compensation laws.

In 1960, Japan had the option of cutting corporate taxes, but it didn't. Instead it invested in fortifying, educating, training, and properly compensating its work force. While "the lost generation" does exist, it does so more because of the recession, and not because workers are not properly compensated in Japan.


One thing I found sad, was that during COVID, everyone found out just how crucial minimum wage workers are to businesses. The local taco bells and mcdonalds that were once 24 hours still advertise as being 24h, but when I go to their drive thru it's either dark, or I'm told they're not serving at that hour. Why? Lack of employees. I sit and watch, and tons of cars go through the drive thru. Businesses are losing tons of money because they simply refuse to pay a decent wage on principle.

I'd think that this would show Republicans just how essential minimum wage workers are for their every day business operation, but nope. Why should I have ever expected that? They'll never respect the proletariat.

But this is a thread about abortion. That's just a tangent about how Republicans continuously disrespect and don't care about life outside of the womb.

But that's what I said with my hypotheticals

So you would flip then, good for you!

Next?

[Orange Joe]

But that's what I said with my hypotheticals

So you would flip then, good for you!

Next?

I don't want the government to have a say in my Healthcare so I'm going to extend that right to women. That's my final amswer.

[Varx]

I don't want the government to have a say in my Healthcare so I'm going to extend that right to women. That's my final amswer.

Nope you're dodging the question papi.

Just carefully consider everything I said.

Doesn't matter if your a man. You have a voice too

[Orange Joe]

Nope you're dodging the question papi.

Just carefully consider everything I said.

Doesn't matter if your a man. You have a voice too

The answer is there if you understand English. My voice = bodily anonymity > religious/conservative feels

[Varx]

The answer is there if you understand english.

So simplify it then

[Edge-]

Nope you're dodging the question papi.

No, that's an answer. Health care decisions are between an individual and their doctor(s), not the individual, their doctor(s), and their local politician.

[Orange Joe]

So simplify it then

It cant get much simpler unless you are mentally disabled.

[Xyonai]

Look I'm driving and have the entire thread responding to me so kinda hard to keep track

*****************

Just answer this guys

If we could have the best possible adoption and single mother welfare and resource system imaginable with the best possible sex ed and access to contraceptives.

Would you guys flip, yes or no?

No, because there are still instances outside of those cases where medical abortions are nessesary to save the mother's life.

As a recent example: Popular Streamer Adiranna Chechik broke her back attending Twitch Con earlier this year, after jumping onto a concrete floor beneath a foam pit, even after staff assured her it was safe enough to jump into, and had to get surgery to repair her spine. During the procedure, she discovers she's pregnant and the only way the doctors can fix her spine is to terminate her pregnancy. She agrees, gets the fetus removed and finished her surgery so she can be able to walk normally again.

This story is 100% real, you can look it up yourself, but if she had broken her back and attempted to get it fixed in any of the states with abortion bans, there's a good chance she'd still be saddled with crippling injuries or be forced to leave the state for the procedure.