SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Xyonai]

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/idaho-...ry?id=96363578



This is exactly what we keep talking about when we talk about how Republicans want to control women's bodies and are perfectly fine letting them suffer, and possibly die.

There was no need for this woman to suffer like she did except for her states draconian laws that resulted in care providers being unwilling to provide her the medical care she needed as a result of their potential liability.

Republicans could fix these problems with all their laws on the books now, but they seem to have absolutely zero interest in that, and instead are continuing to seek to exert more and more control over women's bodies and having the state involved in their medical decisions.

yeah but that one guy on the forums says he isn't cool with this so we should keep abortion banned at all times forever and not look into how actual republican legislators enforce and define their anti-abortion laws or something.

[Edge-]

yeah but that one guy on the forums says he isn't cool with this so we should keep abortion banned at all times forever and not look into how actual republican legislators enforce and define their anti-abortion laws or something.

They're not all inhuman, amoral monsters who are fine letting women suffer when they could easily amend the laws to prevent needless suffering while still accomplishing their otherwise amoral goals! They're not!

[Rasulis]

GOP rep calls for 'stronger laws at state level' to stop women from leaving Indiana to access abortion care

Is this the "freedom" that GOP kept ranting about?

[masterhorus8]

GOP rep calls for 'stronger laws at state level' to stop women from leaving Indiana to access abortion care

Is this the "freedom" that GOP kept ranting about?

Pretty sure that they aren't constitutionally allowed to do that as a part of being part of the United States

[Edge-]

GOP rep calls for 'stronger laws at state level' to stop women from leaving Indiana to access abortion care

Is this the "freedom" that GOP kept ranting about?

...I'm sure we're going to be told that this is just some fringe whacko who managed to get elected to statewide office any second now.

[Flarelaine]

GOP rep calls for 'stronger laws at state level' to stop women from leaving Indiana to access abortion care

Is this the "freedom" that GOP kept ranting about?

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

[Nymrohd]

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Orwell was inevitable.

Thought I think "Fear is Freedom. Subjugation is Liberation. Contradiction is Truth." is much more fitting to conservatives.

[Elder Millennial]

Pretty sure that they aren't constitutionally allowed to do that as a part of being part of the United States

When was the last time a Republican ever gave a damn about what the constitution says or doesn't say?

[Varx]

Boy oh boy....

You guys need to consume and be exposed to more conservative content.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MaYEeXpKotQ

That's Kristan Hawkins, a pro life advocate who goes to different campuses across the country. She goes by scientific fact instead of religion, like my self.

If anyone is on the fence on this topic I'd suggest looking at her.

Also anyone see that feminist panel Vice did. They had an abortion segment too where Pearl from just pearly things, another conservative woman with content on YouTube, had many good points too.

Save your kids guys, you won't regret a life time of love.

- - - Updated - - -

When was the last time a Republican ever gave a damn about what the constitution says or doesn't say?

How about freedom of speech. Many libs would prefer stronger laws against certain kinds of speech, as unpleasant as they might be. Conservatives want to preserve that very important part of the constitution, lest we end up like Canada and their speech laws.

[Edge-]

Conservatives want to preserve that very important part of the constitution, lest we end up like Canada and their speech laws.

Fuckin rofl, tell us you haven't paid any attention to the Republican party over the past 15-20 years in more detail, my guy.

Ya boi Ron DeSantis being a prime example, including that time literally last week a federal judge ruled that he violated the First Amendment - https://www.axios.com/2023/01/21/ron...-warren-ruling

It's adorable you think conservative hypocrisy is appealing or convincing to anyone other than hypocritical conservatives.

[Endus]

Boy oh boy....

You guys need to consume and be exposed to more conservative content.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MaYEeXpKotQ

That's Krista Hawkins, a pro life advocate who goes to different campuses across the country. She goes by scientific fact instead of religion, like my self.

Not possible, as there is no scientific basis nor justification for pro-life views.

I'm not going to watch an entire hour-plus video of garbage, but I gave the intro a quick look, and she's already talking about "children" being given "death dates", so yeah, she's out to absolute fuckin' lunch.

"Really? It's okay to end the life of a child? Solely because of their location or convenience?"

This is a fully emotional argument which requires premises that presume that a fetus is a "child" from conception onwards, which is not an idea that has any basis in science; it is fully religious, since it presumes a magical nature to the creation of a human life, whether she wants to call it a "soul" or use different terminology it's the same non-scientific concept.

Try giving a text breakdown of the arguments rather than trying to force people to wade through oceans of emotion-driven extremist rhetoric to try and glean what few pearls you claim might be found within.

How about freedom of speech. Many libs would prefer stronger laws against certain kinds of speech, as unpleasant as they might be. Conservatives want to preserve that very important of the constitution.

Unchecked freedom of speech does not exist anywhere, and nobody actually supports it. You can't threaten people with violence/death. You can't commit frauds. You can't incite people to riot. You can't publish child pornography. Those are all restrictions on freedom of speech, which all exist because that speech causes harm against some individual or another. That harm principle can readily be applied to other forms of speech, like hate speech, for the very same reasons.

Your positions aren't pro-free-speech. They're pro-harmful-speech. It's no different, conceptually, than being pro-child-porn.

Edit: I see the dig at Canada, and I'll point out it's utterly fucking baseless bullshit. Canada's free speech protections are as strong or stronger than the USA's. We generally rank noticeably higher on press freedom indices, for instance; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

[Varx]

Fuckin rofl, tell us you haven't paid any attention to the Republican party over the past 15-20 years in more detail, my guy.

Ya boi Ron DeSantis being a prime example, including that time literally last week a federal judge ruled that he violated the First Amendment - https://www.axios.com/2023/01/21/ron...-warren-ruling

It's adorable you think conservative hypocrisy is appealing or convincing to anyone other than hypocritical conservatives.

I don't know all the details of that, but whether he acted wrongfully or not, are you gonna paint all conservatives the same?

- - - Updated - - -

Not possible, as there is no scientific basis nor justification for pro-life views.

I'm not going to watch an entire hour-plus video of garbage, but I gave the intro a quick look, and she's already talking about "children" being given "death dates", so yeah, she's out to absolute fuckin' lunch.

"Really? It's okay to end the life of a child? Solely because of their location or convenience?"

This is a fully emotional argument which requires premises that presume that a fetus is a "child" from conception onwards, which is not an idea that has any basis in science; it is fully religious, since it presumes a magical nature to the creation of a human life, whether she wants to call it a "soul" or use different terminology it's the same non-scientific concept.

Try giving a text breakdown of the arguments rather than trying to force people to wade through oceans of emotion-driven extremist rhetoric to try and glean what few pearls you claim might be found within.



Unchecked freedom of speech does not exist anywhere, and nobody actually supports it. You can't threaten people with violence/death. You can't commit frauds. You can't incite people to riot. You can't publish child pornography. Those are all restrictions on freedom of speech, which all exist because that speech causes harm against some individual or another. That harm principle can readily be applied to other forms of speech, like hate speech, for the very same reasons.

Your positions aren't pro-free-speech. They're pro-harmful-speech. It's no different, conceptually, than being pro-child-porn.

I suggest you watch her content more and open yourself up since she does not base her arguments on emotion, unlike those she debates


And I'm aware of exceptions to free speech, like telling "fire" in a crowded space. I'm talking more about speech that hurts people's feelings.

[Endus]

I suggest you watch her content more and open yourself up since she does base her arguments on emotion, unlike those she debates

You've just admitted to her dishonesty and explained why I should dismiss her as a crank.

No argument based on emotion is an honestly-intended or rationally-justifiable one. It's an admission that their argument is intentionally dishonest and misleading.

I see you typoed and corrected, so I'll at this point reframe the above into pointing out she absolutely does base her arguments on emotion; she does so extensively and exclusively in the first few minutes I watched. Literally nothing but emotional appeals. So you're lying.

And I'm aware of exceptions to free speech, like telling "fire" in a crowded space. I'm talking more about speech that hurts people's feelings.

Like child pornography, right? Nobody hit the kids. It "just hurts their feelings". Right?

[Varx]

You've just admitted to her dishonesty and explained why I should dismiss her as a crank.

No argument based on emotion is an honestly-intended or rationally-justifiable one. It's an admission that their argument is intentionally dishonest and misleading.

I see you typoed and corrected, so I'll at this point reframe the above into pointing out she absolutely does base her arguments on emotion; she does so extensively and exclusively in the first few minutes I watched. Literally nothing but emotional appeals. So you're lying.



Like child pornography, right? Nobody hit the kids. It "just hurts their feelings". Right?

Except she doesn't... Again watch her content. She has plenty of shorter vids.

And yeah obviously child porn and anything involving that is wrong and would be an exception for freedom.of speech....

[fwc577]

Boy oh boy....

You guys need to consume and be exposed to more conservative content.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MaYEeXpKotQ

That's Kristan Hawkins, a pro life advocate who goes to different campuses across the country. She goes by scientific fact instead of religion, like my self.

If anyone is on the fence on this topic I'd suggest looking at her.

Also anyone see that feminist panel Vice did. They had an abortion segment too where Pearl from just pearly things, another conservative woman with content on YouTube, had many good points too.

Save your kids guys, you won't regret a life time of love.

- - - Updated - - -



How about freedom of speech. Many libs would prefer stronger laws against certain kinds of speech, as unpleasant as they might be. Conservatives want to preserve that very important part of the constitution, lest we end up like Canada and their speech laws.

How about instead of linking an hour long video you sum up these logical points that she supposedly makes. I put the video on and fast forwarded through her joy over the decision at SC. Then I saw her squealing about mean comments online.

If you have some logical, non-religious based facts. Then please, provide them.

There are plenty of logical fact-based reasons for making abortion legal. Particularly when it comes to protecting the health and life of the mother.

- - - Updated - - -

Except she doesn't... Again watch her content. She has plenty of shorter vids.

And yeah obviously child porn and anything involving that is wrong and would be an exception for freedom.of speech....

Bro, just some it up. Spit some facts. I'm not going to watch a pig squeal about her emotions and feelings on abortion. Facts. Lay them out or shut the fuck up.

[Endus]

Except she doesn't... Again watch her content. She has plenty of shorter vids.

I'm asking you to break it down to what you think are the convincing, science-and-reason-only based arguments for pro-life.

I'm not gonna watch an hour-plus video of emotion-based bullshitting, and I'm not gonna waste my time exploring other content with her trying to find the pearls of wisdom you claim might exist.

You claim to know they're in there. Pluck 'em out so we can see 'em. Stop wasting everyone's time, it's just making it clear there's nothing in there and you know it.

And yeah obviously child porn and anything involving that is wrong and would be an exception for freedom.of speech....

But why? You literally just said that stuff that just "hurts people's feelings" should be permitted. That includes violent threats and child porn and all sorts of stuff that is banned basically everywhere. I'm just asking you to be consistent on your principles.

Because if there's exceptions to your principles, it means even you don't actually believe those principles, so why should we accept your arguments predicated on them?

[Edge-]

I don't know all the details of that, but whether he acted wrongfully or not, are you gonna paint all conservatives the same?

Given that state and national Repbulicans continue proposing anti-Free Speech legislation and limitations? And that we've other incidents like this in recent years?

Yep, because I'm not in a coma and can pay attention to the news.

If you're gonna throw a stone at someone else, don't get upset when that same stone can come back at you.

I suggest you watch her content more and open yourself up since she does not base her arguments on emotion, unlike those she debates

She's a fuckin poli-sci major, bro. And an undergrad at that.

This wouldn't be the first time you've come in here with gross misinformation, so I see no reason to give her any attention or credibility just because you say so. You need credibility first, and you simply don't have that.

And I'm aware of exceptions to free speech, like telling "fire" in a crowded space. I'm talking more about speech that hurts people's feelings.

You mean like Trump wanting to throw reporters who reported on him negatively or broke big stories on jail?

Like that?

[Varx]

I'm asking you to break it down to what you think are the convincing, science-and-reason-only based arguments for pro-life.

I'm not gonna watch an hour-plus video of emotion-based bullshitting, and I'm not gonna waste my time exploring other content with her trying to find the pearls of wisdom you claim might exist.

You claim to know they're in there. Pluck 'em out so we can see 'em. Stop wasting everyone's time, it's just making it clear there's nothing in there and you know it.



But why? You literally just said that stuff that just "hurts people's feelings" should be permitted. That includes violent threats and child porn and all sorts of stuff that is banned basically everywhere. I'm just asking you to be consistent on your principles.

Because if there's exceptions to your principles, it means even you don't actually believe those principles, so why should we accept your arguments predicated on them?

Terrorist threats and child porn soliciting is not the same as calling someone a derogatory term or preaching racist ideals. As unpleasant as they might be people have the right to be bigots as long as they're not indicating violence.

- - - Updated - - -

Given that state and national Repbulicans continue proposing anti-Free Speech legislation and limitations? And that we've other incidents like this in recent years?

Yep, because I'm not in a coma and can pay attention to the news.

If you're gonna throw a stone at someone else, don't get upset when that same stone can come back at you.



She's a fuckin poli-sci major, bro. And an undergrad at that.

This wouldn't be the first time you've come in here with gross misinformation, so I see no reason to give her any attention or credibility just because you say so. You need credibility first, and you simply don't have that.



You mean like Trump wanting to throw reporters who reported on him negatively or broke big stories on jail?

Like that?

Libel and slander are different issues

[Edge-]

Libel and slander are different issues

Not for libel or slander, my guy.

Though people who hate free speech accusing everyone of libeling/slandering them is exactly the kind of anti-First Amendment behavior that conservatives seem to ignore because it put some lipstick on the argument. (because it is neither, and obviously so)

[Varx]

Not for libel or slander, my guy.

Though people who hate free speech accusing everyone of libeling/slandering them is exactly the kind of anti-First Amendment behavior that conservatives seem to ignore because it put some lipstick on the argument. (because it is neither, and obviously so)

Well you have to prove it. ... And if you can then it stands. If you can't then yeah tough luck, free speech baby.

- - - Updated - - -

Guys I'm not going to sumerize Kristan Hawkins. I linked that vid as reference so you can watch on your own leisure. Hopefully being exposed to more conservative perspective will change the minds of those in this thread who might have some doubts.

Saving one life at a time.