SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Mekh]

He gets more incompetent and lazy with every ban, doesn't he. Just two or three more and he'll be nothing but a drooling vegetable.

[Endus]

He gets more incompetent and lazy with every ban, doesn't he. Just two or three more and he'll be nothing but a drooling vegetable.

I'm most disturbed by his "you consented earlier, so you can't say 'no' now that my pants are off" approach to consent. Which is wildly problematic, to say the least, as my paraphrase there should clearly indicate.

[Darththeo]

How so? Cuz she's stated clearly she's not going off of religious motivation when called out in it.

Because that is clearly a lie. Anyone can say they aren't religiously motivated, doesn't mean they are being truthful. There is no scientific argument that supports pro-life.

There are creationists who say they aren't arguing for creation from religious motivation. Do you believe those people as well?

[Mekh]

I'm most disturbed by his "you consented earlier, so you can't say 'no' now that my pants are off" approach to consent. Which is wildly problematic, to say the least, as my paraphrase there should clearly indicate.

He's a Tate fan. We have already identified him as a rapist.

[Endus]

Because that is clearly a lie. Anyone can say they aren't religiously motivated, doesn't mean they are being truthful. There is no scientific argument that supports pro-life.

There are creationists who say they aren't arguing for creation from religious motivation. Do you believe those people as well?

They may be trying to play with the word "religious", and exclude views that are merely spiritual/faith-based from "religious" if they're not actively engaged with organized religion.

Any "human life begins at conception" argument fundamentally is predicated on the idea of a magical human "soul", however. Which makes it inherently religious. Organized faith group or no.

[Varx]

This premise is not held true for any situation. Why would I entertain it for abortion, specifically? You never explain this, because you can't, because it's an inconsistency that doesn't hold up.



1> Consent can be revoked at any moment. Not understanding that raises serious moral questions.
2> Pregnancies can be ended, medically. Via abortion. So this ceases to be an argument because of abortion; it doesn't work as an argument against abortion.



No, it's up to how reason and rational analysis works.

If it were "up to me", then I'd be admitting to being an irrational and emotion-driven individual.



You're literally the one pretending you can ignore consent and force women to bear to term even when they aren't consenting to doing so.

And you haven't given any biological argument against abortion, at all. Literally nothing. And no; don't delve into the stages of human development again; that's not an argument against abortion. It's an appeal to emotion fallacy.

I'm talking for the situation of pregnancy and child birth. You have consensual sex, you know it could result in pregnancy, you get pregnant, you own up to your actions and birth the innocent life developing inside you.

Yeah consent can be revoked even during sex. But you can't revoke consent with pregnancy lol wtf. It's not the same thing.

You want a biological argument against abortion? How about the fact that abortion is a manmade thing that does not happen in nature.

Abortion is something humans invented for convenience.

Which by the way, a majority of.abortions are for convenience instead of things like incest or rape.

Killing your own child for convenience is evil and harmful for society.

Instead we should make strides for better sex ed and accessibility for contraceptives.

But if you choose to omit yourself from contraceptives or your contraceptives fail then you need to own up to your biological responsibility.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm most disturbed by his "you consented earlier, so you can't say 'no' now that my pants are off" approach to consent. Which is wildly problematic, to say the least, as my paraphrase there should clearly indicate.

Way to twist my words.... Not once did i imply women can't opt out of sex while having sex

- - - Updated - - -

Because that is clearly a lie. Anyone can say they aren't religiously motivated, doesn't mean they are being truthful. There is no scientific argument that supports pro-life.

There are creationists who say they aren't arguing for creation from religious motivation. Do you believe those people as well?

So you're in her head? You're psychic wow amazing.

The scientific argument is that a fetus is a human being. It ain't a carrot, right?

[Darththeo]

They may be trying to play with the word "religious", and exclude views that are merely spiritual/faith-based from "religious" if they're not actively engaged with organized religion.

Any "human life begins at conception" argument fundamentally is predicated on the idea of a magical human "soul", however. Which makes it inherently religious. Organized faith group or no.

The issue is science does not know and may never have the capability of knowing when life begins specifically. Hell, science is still arguing on what exactly is life. To say, that you can "scientifically" argue that life begins at conception is just wrong. Science makes no such claim.

Yeah, pretty much. Science makes no claim on when life begins because contrary to what conservatives think, we actually don't have that well of an understanding of it.

So, anytime someone says "I will scientifically argue against abortion" they are saying "I will say how I justify my position as non-religious, even though in reality, I am religiously motivated."

[Varx]

He's a Tate fan. We have already identified him as a rapist.

So because I agree with some of top g's ideals, NOT ALL. I don't think his life style is something all men should stride for. I'm a rapist? Big oof there buddy

[Darththeo]

So you're in her head? You're psychic wow amazing.

The scientific argument is that a fetus is a human being. It ain't a carrot, right?

That isn't an argument against abortion. Because this only is an argument against abortion if you believe that humans have an inalienable right to life. You have to bring in "non-science" to argue it. And the reason most people think we have a right to life is religiously motivated.

[Endus]

I'm talking for the situation of pregnancy and child birth. You have consensual sex, you know it could result in pregnancy, you get pregnant, you own up to your actions and birth the innocent life developing inside you.

Consent to sex is not consent to continuing a resulting pregnancy to term. That's literally not a thing, especially since we can terminate an unwanted pregnancy. You're making this shit up and refusing to acknowledge that consent isn't a switch that's flipped and can't be un-flipped, it's an active state that can be revoked at any moment.

Yeah consent can be revoked even during sex. But you can't revoke consent with pregnancy lol wtf. It's not the same thing.

You have no argument as to why that would be the case. You absolutely can revoke consent to pregnancy; people do it all the time. You just don't want them to be able to, and you want to ignore their lack of consent and force them to bear to term.

You want a biological argument against abortion? How about the fact that abortion is a manmade thing that does not happen in nature.

Abortion is something humans invented for convenience.

Literally a lie! Miscarriages are, medically, labelled as "spontaneous abortions". As opposed to "induced abortions", which are what you're ranting about. Miscarriages are abortions, and they absolutely happen naturally.

You really don't have any basic grasp of these things, do you?

Which by the way, a majority of.abortions are for convenience instead of things like incest or rape.

So?

Also, if you support exceptions for incest or rape, then we know you don't actually believe any of the nonsense you're saying about "it's a human life!" Why would we entertain nonsense maxims that you've admitted here that even you don't believe to be true?

Killing your own child for convenience is evil and harmful for society.

Not a child. You're back to stamping your foot and making appeals to emotion.

Instead we should make strides for better sex ed and accessibility for contraceptives.

Absolutely. But that's still not an argument against abortion, or an alternative to abortion rights.

But if you choose to omit yourself from contraceptives or your contraceptives fail then you need to own up to your biological responsibility.

Why on Earth would I entertain the delusional and meritless idea of "biological responsibility"? It's a nonsense concept you invented, out of nothing. It does not exist.

[Varx]

They may be trying to play with the word "religious", and exclude views that are merely spiritual/faith-based from "religious" if they're not actively engaged with organized religion.

Any "human life begins at conception" argument fundamentally is predicated on the idea of a magical human "soul", however. Which makes it inherently religious. Organized faith group or no.

it's based on that fact that conception creates a completely unique human with their own unique DNA blueprint. Nothing to o do with soil BS.

An egg and ovum come together to form a brand new human. Just because they haven't developing yet doesn't make them any less human. The day a fertilized egg turns into a an Xbox then I'll retract my statement.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue is science does not know and may never have the capability of knowing when life begins specifically. Hell, science is still arguing on what exactly is life. To say, that you can "scientifically" argue that life begins at conception is just wrong. Science makes no such claim.

Yeah, pretty much. Science makes no claim on when life begins because contrary to what conservatives think, we actually don't have that well of an understanding of it.

So, anytime someone says "I will scientifically argue against abortion" they are saying "I will say how I justify my position as non-religious, even though in reality, I am religiously motivated."

The egg becomes fertilized and then begins multiplying and growing because, hold your hat for this hot topic, ITS ALIVE.

- - - Updated - - -

That isn't an argument against abortion. Because this only is an argument against abortion if you believe that humans have an inalienable right to life. You have to bring in "non-science" to argue it. And the reason most people think we have a right to life is religiously motivated.

We have a right to life because we live in a society. You wanna live in chaos like an animal?

[Darththeo]

The egg becomes fertilized and then begins multiplying and growing because, hold your hat for this hot topic, ITS ALIVE.

It was technically "alive" before fertilization. And you can have multiplying cells, but be classified as "dead."

You aren't as knowledgeable as you think you are.

[Endus]

Way to twist my words.... Not once did i imply women can't opt out of sex while having sex

When you claim consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, and that consent can't be revoked after being given, that is exactly what you're saying. I'll agree you're not implying it; you're coming right out and overtly stating it up-front.

The scientific argument is that a fetus is a human being. It ain't a carrot, right?

"Human being" isn't a scientific term. It's natural language, or it has a legal meaning, and the legal meaning explicitly doesn't work like you claim; a fetus is legally not a "human being", definitively.

So, not a scientific argument at all, actually.

[Darththeo]

We have a right to life because we live in a society. You wanna live in chaos like an animal?

1) We are animals.
2) And I don't live in a society where I actually have a right to live. America doesn't actually hold that as a right.
3) Even if you do, or believe you do, that does not make a scientific argument against abortion. At most, you could argue it is non-religious, but given most people hold to a right to life because of religious reasons; I am going to say no.

[Endus]

it's based on that fact that conception creates a completely unique human with their own unique DNA blueprint. Nothing to o do with soil BS.

Tumors have unique DNA. Are they people?

Twins share DNA, so neither's DNA blueprint is unique. Are they not people?

This just isn't an argument. It's nonsense. It's a cover story to hide the claims of a soul, which a tumor wouldn't have and twins would each have, unlike DNA blueprints.

An egg and ovum come together to form a brand new human. Just because they haven't developing yet doesn't make them any less human. The day a fertilized egg turns into a an Xbox then I'll retract my statement.

So? You haven't explained why this means anything.

The egg becomes fertilized and then begins multiplying and growing because, hold your hat for this hot topic, ITS ALIVE.

The gametes that combined to form that egg were also both alive. Why don't you hold the same position for sperm and ova that don't manage to combine with their counterparts? They're "human" too, after all.

[Edge-]

top g's

It's really weird the terms that dudes will come up with to avoid calling another man "daddy".

[Varx]

Consent to sex is not consent to continuing a resulting pregnancy to term. That's literally not a thing, especially since we can terminate an unwanted pregnancy. You're making this shit up and refusing to acknowledge that consent isn't a switch that's flipped and can't be un-flipped, it's an active state that can be revoked at any moment.



You have no argument as to why that would be the case. You absolutely can revoke consent to pregnancy; people do it all the time. You just don't want them to be able to, and you want to ignore their lack of consent and force them to bear to term.



Literally a lie! Miscarriages are, medically, labelled as "spontaneous abortions". As opposed to "induced abortions", which are what you're ranting about. Miscarriages are abortions, and they absolutely happen naturally.

You really don't have any basic grasp of these things, do you?



So?

Also, if you support exceptions for incest or rape, then we know you don't actually believe any of the nonsense you're saying about "it's a human life!" Why would we entertain nonsense maxims that you've admitted here that even you don't believe to be true?



Not a child. You're back to stamping your foot and making appeals to emotion.



Absolutely. But that's still not an argument against abortion, or an alternative to abortion rights.



Why on Earth would I entertain the delusional and meritless idea of "biological responsibility"? It's a nonsense concept you invented, out of nothing. It does not exist.

I knew you'd have the audacity to compare involuntary miscarriage to abortion. Just wanted you to say it. A miscarriage is caused by an unhealthy or unviable pregnancy. Not because someone made a.stupid decision or just doesn't want to deal with the burden of parenthood

People only can because it's currently legal in some states. Key word, currently.

I support exceptions because we live in a society which means there are always exceptions. But exceptions never make the rules, they define them.

If we were living lawlessly then raped victims are sol. But thankfully we don't and we have benefits that separates us from the rest of life on earth. But that also means as a society we have responsibilities to own up to. Pregnancy being one.of them, or soon to be at least for the US.

[Darththeo]

I knew you'd have the audacity to compare involuntary miscarriage to abortion. Just wanted you to say it. A miscarriage is caused by an unhealthy or unviable pregnancy. Not because someone made a.stupid decision or just doesn't want to deal with the burden of parenthood
.

Who in the hell told you that bull? That is not what a miscarriage is.

[Endus]

The issue is science does not know and may never have the capability of knowing when life begins specifically. Hell, science is still arguing on what exactly is life. To say, that you can "scientifically" argue that life begins at conception is just wrong. Science makes no such claim.

If we can agree that organisms today are "alive", then biology actually can identify when life begins.

The problem, here, is that this concept is "abiogenesis", and it's a reference to an occurence some 3.8 billion years ago. It's still indeterminate, both in exactly when and in the precise process.

But procreation? That's a process by which life replicates. There's never a point of "un-life" in there which then "becomes alive". Every individual step is itself "alive", and that's been true for these past billions of years.

Which is why it's so ridiculous to try and talk about "when life begins" with regards to abortion; "life" is just continuing, as it always has, for every species, in all of Earth's biological history. Life does not "begin" on the individual scale, it's merely replicated and transformed.

[Varx]

It was technically "alive" before fertilization. And you can have multiplying cells, but be classified as "dead."

You aren't as knowledgeable as you think you are.

Before fertilization it's not a unique human. I'm not a lunatic who thinks male masterbation is genocide. An unfertilized egg is not a unique human.

I dunno what situation a dead person still has multiplying cells unless I guess during the first few minutes or hours after death, but a growing baby wouldn't fall into that. Nice try.

So yeah they're alive and growing. They're human.